IN THE KIRIBATI COURT OF APPEAL
LAND JURISDICTION
HELD AT BETIO

Land Appeal 4 of 2007

BETWEEN:

BAIKAWA TEEBITA MTMM
Appellants

AND:

KIRATA TEUNA
Respondents

Before: Tompkins JA
Fisher JA
Williams JA

Counsel for Appellants: Maere Kirata 
Counsel for Respondents: Abunaba Takabwebwe 

Date of Hearing: 14 August 2010
Date of Judgment: 18 August 2010

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

[1]	The appellants ask this Court to recall its judgment of 30 July 2007 in CA4/07. That judgment had dismissed an appeal from the High Court which in turn had allowed an appeal from the Magistrates' Court. The ground for recall of our earlier judgment is said to be that critical evidence was never heard in either the High Court or the Court of Appeal. 

[2]	We accept that in extremely rare circumstances this Court has the jurisdiction to recall one of its own judgments – see Rule 6 of the Court of Appeal Rules, Order 63, Rule 5 of the High Court Rules and such authorities as Autodesk Inc v Dyason (No 2) [1993] HCA 6; (1993) 176 CLR 300. 

[3]	However in the present case we do not need to consider the scope of that jurisdiction any further. The ultimate objective of the appellants is to gain the opportunity to adduce further evidence which they say ought to have been offered in the High Court, but in the event was not due to inadequacies on the part of the appellants' then counsel. That evidence is concerned solely with questions of fact. 

[4]	Even if we were to recall our earlier judgment, any resumed appeal in this Court would be confined to questions of law: see s 10(1)(b) of the Court of Appeal Act 1980. There would be no jurisdiction for this Court to revisit the questions of fact which concern the appellants. Any recall would therefore achieve nothing for the appellants.

[5]	The application to recall is therefore dismissed with costs to the respondents to be agreed or fixed by the Registrar. For the removal of doubt, we record that there is presently no extant appeal before this Court. 

Tompkins JA
Fisher JA
Williams JA