IN THE KIRIBATI COURT OF APPEAL
LAND JURISDICTION
HELD AT BETIO

Land Appeal No 2 of 2010

BETWEEN:

TERIBWEBWE TEKABWEBWERE, IOTEBA KOBAUA, 
TAOREREI KOBAUA, KATABABA TIBWERE AND MEEM TENGKOI
APPELLANTS

AND:

AKITAAKE KAIRORONGA
RESPONDENT

Before: Tompkins JA
Fisher JA
Williams JA

Counsel: Botika Maitinnara for appellants
Taoing Taoaba for respondent

Date of Hearing: 14 August 2010
Date of Judgment: 17 August 2010

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

[1]	The appellants have appealed against the decision of the High Court delivered on 8 January 2010 in which it declined an appeal against a determination of a boundary made by a Single Magistrate.

The sequence of events

[2]	In CN 12/74 the magistrate determined the boundary between Nanoiaki 777n and 777b.

[3]	There followed a series of hearings and appeals that we need not detail, the result of which was that the issue came again before a Single Magistrate in CN 34/06. The Single Magistrate was required to determine the boundary in accordance with the decision in CN12/74. After a series of hearings, the Single Magistrate made the boundary determination as recorded in a plan that was part of the decision.

[4]	From that decision the appellant appealed to the High Court on grounds the essence of which were that the Single Magistrate in CN 34/06 failed to comply with the decision in CN 12/74.

[5]	In a brief judgment the High Court rejected that claim. It held that the Single Magistrate applied the decision in CN 12/74 to the land as it now is. That was a finding of fact in respect of which a court on appeal should not lightly interfere.

The appeal

[6]	From that decision the appellants appealed to this court on the grounds that the High Court erred in law in:

[a]	Failing to determine whether the Lands Court in Case 34 of 2006 complies with Case 12 of 1974.

[b]	The Single Magistrate in his decision in Lands Court Case 34 of 2006 failed to comply with Case 12 of 1974 and

[c]	The Single Magistrate in his decision in Lands Court Case 34 of 2006 overruled the decision of the same Court in Case 74 of 1964 (the distribution of the Appellants' land in two portions).

Decision 

[7]	Section 10 (1) (b) of the Court of Appeal Act Cap 16B gives this court jurisdiction to determine appeals " . . from any decision of the High Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction under any enactment which does not prohibit a further appeal to this court." But the subsection also provides that the appeal shall lie "on any ground of appeal which involves a question of law only."

[8]	All too often this court has to point out this provision to counsel who bring appeals to this court on what can only be challenges to findings of fact. What counsel have in these cases failed to appreciate is that this court does not have jurisdiction to determine any appeals that are on any grounds other than questions of law. In those cases the court has no option but to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that the court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal.

[9]	This appeal is such a case. It is obvious from the grounds of appeal that what the appellants are seeking to do is to challenge the original decision and the decision in the High Court solely on the basis that the Single Magistrate did not follow the decision in CN12/74. Whether or not he did can only be a question of fact.

[10]	The appeal is dismissed. The respondent is entitled to costs to be agreed or fixed by the Registrar.

Tompkins JA
Fisher JA
Williams JA