IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI

HIGH COURT LAND APPEAL 2023-00004 HC/LAA/ST

BETWEEN:		      UNIMWAANE & UNAINE, BETIO
			Appellant

	         AND:		      RIRI KATABA
					Respondent

Date of Hearing:		     	10 September 2024
Date of Judgment:			8 October 2024

Appearances:		    	      Mr Titabu Tabane for the Appellant
                                                  Ms Botika Maitinnara for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

A brief background of the case;

1.	The case is an appeal against the Magistrates Court's decision in Miscellaneous Application 1 of 2023, delivered on 17 February 2023, arising from Betlan 746 of 2018.

2.	The application was in relation to the Appellants’ breach of the court order dated 11 March 2020, which says, ‘both parties must be restrained from occupying the maneaba, except for those who were responsible for looking after it.’ After the court had heard all the evidence introduced during the hearing, it found that the appellants were in breach of that order.  

3.	The appellants are not satisfied with the magistrate court's finding, which is the purpose of this appeal.

Appeal Ground

4.	The appellants filed four grounds in support of their appeal as follows;

GROUND 1; 

The learned Magistrate erred in law and in fact by finding that the Appellants had violated the court order when basing his reasons on the previous magistrate’s court’s decision which was not referred to in name, in number, and the date on which that order or orders was delivered;

5.	There were two components of the magistrate’s decision that the appellant was concerned about. First was the decision that the appellants had breached the previous order of the magistrate court, which directed that both parties must refrain from occupying the maneaba, only those responsible for looking after it. Second was the decision that an order from another magistrate court confirmed the Respondent that she was the one who should look after the maneaba.
 
6.	The Appellant contends that the decision was incomprehensible because of its vagueness and lack of clarity and, therefore, should be dismissed. Counsel referred this Court to an Indian case of State Bank of India and Another v Ajay Kumar Sood [2022] (6) KHC SN 11 (SC) in support of this argument. Counsel submits that in that case, the Supreme Court of India referred to the judgment of the Division Bench of Himachal Pradesh as incomprehensible and that it was difficult to navigate through the maze of incomprehensible language in the decision. 

7.	The Appellants, through Counsel, submit that the Magistrate found them in breach of the court order previously made but failed to give a reference to that court order. Counsel explained that different magistrate courts previously issued several orders in relation to this dispute between the two parties. The magistrate court did not specify which decisions he referred to in his judgment. 

8.	Counsel referred to paragraphs two and four to clarify his points. Paragraph two of the judgment states: "In the court’s previous order, it binds the parties not to stay or use the maneaba as the only ones allowed are those looking after it. In addition, another court order confirms that the plaintiff, Riri Kataba, is the one to look after the maneaba. That part of the said order has not been breached until now.” 

Paragraph four states, "Under the law, Riri Kataba is protected as she is the one to look after the maneaba. Counsel for the Appellants argues that because the magistrate court did not reference the court decision, they could not find the court order that ruled that Riri Kataba was the one to look after the maneaba. They could only assume the other case was from a judgment dated 11 March 2020.

9.	On the other hand, Counsel for the Respondent submits that during the hearing, the court referred to previous rulings, one of which is the ruling by SM Tabakitoa in Miscellaneous Application 257 of 2021, where the court found that the respondent was one of the caretakers of the maneaba, and that cannot be overruled.

10.	After considering both submissions, we agree with the Appellants that the judgment was incomprehensive and difficult to understand because it referred to two orders previously made but failed to reference those judgments. Although the parties can assume which judgments were referred to, the second part, which confirmed that the Respondent was protected by law because she was the one to look after the maneaba, was difficult to locate. 

11.	The Magistrate Court Rule 30(e) pertains to land procedures. However, the rule infers a mandatory requirement that the court's reasoning accompany any judgment. We believe that if the court bases its decision on other court orders, it should specifically reference the name and date of those orders. This will ensure that the parties involved and anyone reading the decision can understand it. Those affected by the decision have the right to know which order they have violated and should not be left to speculate. Without these pieces of information, the court’s reasoning is incomplete, and the decision remains ambiguous. For this reason, ground one is allowed.

GROUND 2;

That the learned Magistrate erred in law and, in fact, in finding that the Appellants or the Unimwane component of the Appellants had violated the said order (unnamed, unnumbered, and undated) when the reason for the presence of the appellants was to comply with the court’s decision of 11 March 2020.

12.	The Appellants, through Counsel, submit that they were at the maneaba because of the order dated 11 March 2020. They claimed that because of the lack of clarity of that court order, the Betio Unimwane Association believed that asking those unimwane who also own the land on which the maneaba was located to carry out the task of looking after the maneaba was in accordance with the order, hence their presence in the maneaba. 

13.	Counsel for the respondent submits otherwise that it was clear from the evidence of Tauranga Uni (Chairman of the Unimwane Association) that the main reason for the Appellants' presence in the maneaba was because of their ownership over the other three pieces of lands in which the maneaba was situated. 

14.	Reading the judgment, nothing in it elaborates on the process of how the maneaba should be looked after and by whom to determine whether the presence of Unimwanen Betio (Appellants) in the maneaba was in breach of this process. The magistrate court arrived at its decision that the Unimwanen (Old men) Betio violated the court order simply because they occupied the maneaba by the plots that they owned where the maneaba was located. To clarify, the maneaba is situated on four pieces of land, one of which is owned by the Respondent and the other three by some members of Unimwanen Betio, but one of them lived elsewhere. The judgment did not consider or explain that this was not how the maneaba should be looked after. The judgment only stated that the Respondent was confirmed by another magistrate court decision as the one to look after the maneaba. This decision was not from the same judgment that imposed the condition in the first place, and we also could not find it among the copies of the decisions submitted before this court. As mentioned in the above paragraphs, both magistrates' court decisions were unreferenced in the case on appeal. For these reasons, ground two must be allowed. 

GROUND 3 & GROUND 4;
G3 – that the court’s finding is against the weight of evidence
G4 – that the finding and the reasoning of the learned magistrate in this case are contrary to its earlier decision of March 11, 2020.

15.	The arguments on grounds 3 and 4 are the same as for grounds 1 and 2. There is no need to re-state them.

ORDER;

For the above reasons;

a)	The appeal is allowed.

b)	The decision in Miscellaneous 1 of 2023 is quashed.

c)	The matter is remitted to the Magistrate court for the court to reconsider the matter and to determine how and by whom the maneaba should be looked after at the relevant time. Most importantly, it is essential to reference other previously made orders if relied upon. Otherwise, the parties are encouraged to make peace on this matter and adhere to the process of looking after the maneaba as originally ordered by the magistrate court on 11 March 2020.

d)	Parties to bear their own cost.

THE HON TETIRO SEMILOTA MAATE MOANIBA
Chief Justice

 TEETUA TEWERA   						TITAN TOAKAI
 Land Appeal Magistrate				                      Land Appeal Magistrate