IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI
CIVIL JURISDICTION
HELD AT BETIO
REPUBLIC OF KIRIBATI

High Court Civil Case 89 of 2006

BETWEEN:

TARIMWE BAIA
AHLING BAREREI
Applicants

AND:

BAUA EREKITE
1st Respondent

TIEBANE KATOKITA
2nd Respondent

TEINGOA EREKANA
3rd Respondent

ATTORNEY GENERAL iro THE LANDS COURT
Of South Tarawa
4th Respondent

For the Applicants: Mr Banuera Berina
For the 1st Respondent: Mr Stephen Earl
For the 2nd & 3rd Respondents: Ms Taoing Taoaba

Dates of Hearing: 19 & 25 April 2007

JUDGMENT

These reasons should be read with my Memorandum of 23rd April 2007. Having come to a conclusion as to Nei Tarimwe’s full payment for the land, the only question remaining is as to which title should prevail, Nei Tarimwe’s and Nei Ahling’s or Nei Tiebane’s and Teingoa’s? Unfortunately either the applicants or the second and third respondents must be the losers. Both had bought the land from Nei Baua for value and without notice of any defect in title.

Ms Taoaba argued that her clients had done all they needed to do, by checking the register, to find that Nei Baua was registered as owner: they should not be penalized. On the other hand, Ms Taoaba argued, Nei Tarimwe and Nei Ahling had done nothing to check that their title was protected. The answer is that the applicants did not need to do anything: they had paid the agreed price and had been registered: they were entitled to rely on the indefeasibility of their title. The same may, of course, be said of the respondents. The only difference is that the applicants’ registration, being first in time, must take precedence. It must prevail over the respondents’ later purported registration. The respondents’ registration cannot stand and the applicants’ registration must be restored.

The application for certiorari is granted, CN 260/04 is removed into this Court and the decision of the Single Magistrate quashed.

Dated the 26th day of April 2007

THE HON ROBIN MILLHOUSE QC
Chief Justice