Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Kiribati

Tekemau v Titribo [1997] KIHC 12; HCLA 154.91 (14 May 1997)

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

HCLA 154/91

BETWEEN:

TEBANE TEKEMAU
Appellant

AND:

KOROBWI TIRIBO
Respondent

Appellant in person
Respondent in person

Date of Hearing: 12 May 1997

JUDGMENT

In case No. 34/91 the appellant applied to the Makin Land Magistrates' Court for her father Tekemau to receive a share of some babai pits. The minutes of the proceedings in the lower court are exceedingly brief and do not name any specific pits. However, it is clear that the pits in issue were those registered in the name of the respondent's father, Tiribo.

The magistrates decided that since registration of the pits in Tiribo's name had already been approved by a Land Magistrates' Court, the appellant's claim should be disallowed. That decision is the subject of this appeal.

Before dealing with the appellant's main argument we should make a point about her grounds of appeal as filed, viz:

"1. Tekemau should receive a share since it is written in the Register (Pit).

2. We are dissatisfied with the court's decision".
   

In presenting her appeal to us, the appellant did not rely on the first ground of appeal. In fact, she did not even mention it. This is not surprising because in her evidence to the lower court she said that her enquiries about Tekemau's estate revealed that he owned some land but no pits.

The argument relied on by the appellant when presenting her appeal to us was that she and the respondent have the same ancestry and therefore should have an equal share of the babai pits.

It is at least true that the appellant and the respondent had the same great grandfather, whose name was Wanikaie. Wanikaie married twice. His first wife was Terawete. Their son was Tebuaka, the appellant's grandfather. When Terawete died, Wanikaie married her sister Temaawa. From this union came a son, Taakuria, the respondent's grandfather. The lands which devolved upon the appellant's family came from Tebuaka and the lands which devolved upon the respondent's family came from Taakuria.

The appellant claims that at the present day her father Tekemau owns only 3 pits whereas Tiribo, the respondent's father, owns 11 pits.

The respondent claims that Tebuaka gave away a lot of his pits and that is why there are only 3 pits left. The respondent argues that because the person from whom the appellant inherited gave away his property is not a reason to allow the appellant to share in what was left to the respondent's family by their grandfather Taakuria.

We agree with this argument. The appellant has not demonstrated, either in the Land Magistrates' Court nor before us, that she has any legitimate claim to the babai pits which the respondent inherited through her grandfather Taakuria. The appellant has not produced any evidence of what lands or pits were originally owned by her grandfather Tebuaka, what lands he disposed of or acquired during his lifetime, or what lands remained after his death to be inherited by his descendants. The appellant's claim that she should be given some of the respondent's pits merely because they are related and the respondent owns more pits than she does, is baseless and unreasonable.

We are of the view that on the evidence, or rather the lack of it, the magistrates could have come to no other decision than to disallow the appellant's claim.

We would add one more thing. Although the minutes of the lower court proceedings were very brief, they indicate that the pits in issue were already registered in Tiribo's name. The appellant did not seem to dispute this in those proceedings. Indeed, the magistrates accepted that the registration of the pits had already been approved by a Land Magistrates' Court. That being the case, the title of the respondent's father Tiribo to the babai pits in issue is indefeasible.

For the reasons given, the appeal fails and is dismissed.

The appellant is advised that she has a right to appeal to the Court of Appeal within 6 weeks.

THE HON R B LUSSICK
Chief Justice
(14/05/97)

TEKAIE TENANORA
Magistrate
(14/05/97)

BETERO KAITANGARE
Magistrate
(14/05/97)