In the High Court of Kiribati
Land Jurisdiction
Held at Betio
Republic of Kiribati

High Court Land Appeal 31 of 2004

Between:

Atanimatang Tearoua
Appellant

And:

Aree Teunaia
Respondent

For the Appellant: Mr Banuera Berina
For the Respondent: Ms Botika Maitinnara

Date of Hearing: 19 November 2004

JUDGMENT
(Ex Tempore)

The facts in this case are somewhat complicated but there is no need to set them out. It is sufficient to say that the issue is whether there was fraud in Case Numbers 70/59 and 27/75. The Single Magistrate decided that the simple fact of a “registration (being) made without the knowledge of the owners and they were not summoned” was sufficient to shew fraud. It is not. Fraud must be proved strictly, that is, must be proved beyond reasonable doubt as in a criminal case. It looks as though there may have been fraud but not necessarily. Much more evidence of fraud is needed than was put before the Court. We think this case should be returned to the Magistrates’ Court for rehearing. That means the respondent upon whom the onus of proof lies, will have to bring much stronger evidence of fraud before the Single Magistrate can find it.

Mr Berina has complained strongly that the respondent over the years has made several attempts to shew fraud of which this is the latest and should not be given another chance. To the contrary we think that one more chance, on a rehearing, is fair but we direct that the rehearing should be as soon as possible and the respondent must get on with the case not try to delay it. And this should be the respondent’s last chance.

The appeal is allowed, the order of the Single Magistrate quashed and the case returned for rehearing in accordance with these reasons.

THE HON ROBIN MILLHOUSE QC
Chief Justice

BETERO KAITANGARE
Magistrate

RARATU IEITA
Magistrate