IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI
HELD AT MAIANA
(BEFORE THE HON R B LUSSICK C.J.)

HCLA 183/90

BETWEEN:

AIWI TENEA
Appellant

AND:

TIAON CORRIE
Respondent

JUDGMENT

The record of the proceedings in the magistrates' court is by no means easy to follow. Going by the record the plaintiff was unsuccessful in the lower court yet it was the defendant who filed the appeal. The lower court also went into the plaintiff's family tree in some detail.

After hearing from the parties in the present appeal it is clear that the correct plaintiff in the lower court was Aiwi Tenea, and the correct defendant Tiaon Corrie. What the plaintiff was seeking in the lower court was compensation for living on the defendant's land, developing it and paying government charges such as copra tax. The inquiry into the family tree by the lower court was therefore not relevant.

The appellant's family had lived on the land owned by the respondent for 38 years. During that time they cleared the land and planted it and paid copra tax on the copra they cut. However, they also had free use of the land and lived off it. They planted crops and consumed those crops. During all of this time the respondent did not ask them to pay anything to her for the use of the land. It was up to the appellant's family of course to pay the copra tax if they cut copra, but that was their only liability.

The appellant was unable to tell us how much tax had been paid over the years because it was not she who paid it but her father. Nevertheless she does not deny that the respondent never made any demands on the family to pay rent for the land they were using.

The action in the lower court followed a decision of the respondent to allow someone else to use the land. The magistrates decided that no compensation was due to the appellant because her family had free use of the respondent's land for so many years.

We can find nothing wrong with that decision. An owner of land is free to do with it as he or she wishes. If the owner wishes another person to use it then, in the absence of any lease, there is nothing to stop him. It is true that the appellant's family cleared the land and planted it, but that was for their benefit, not the owner's. After free use of the land for 38 years we cannot see that the appellant's family would be entitled to compensation as well.

The appeal is dismissed accordingly.

Right of appeal explained.

THE HON R B LUSSICK
Chief Justice
(01/07/96)

TEKAIE TENANORA
Magistrate
(01/07/96)

BETERO KAITANGARE
Magistrate
(01/07/96)