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

Biribo v Taam [2024] KIHC 53; HCLA 2024-00789 (5 November 2024)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI

HIGH COURT LAND APPEAL 2024-00789

BETWEEN: Tebaiuea Biribo for the Family
Appellants

AND: Tebwebwe Taam
Respondent

Date of Hearing: 29 October 2024
Date of Judgment: 5 November 2024

Appearances: Mr Mantaia Kaongotao for the Appellants
Ms Bwatitea Tekanito for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

The Case: Brief Facts

1. Background
1.1. The Court’s decision on appeal relates to the judgment of the Betio Lands Magistrates Court delivered in Betlan 340/2022 on 1st January 2023. The case seeks the deregistration of Tebwebwe Taam from land plot Biketibu no: 774n, claiming that the registration of the said Tebwebwe over this plot has been done by way of fraud.

1.2. Briefly, it is claimed that the said land plot, Biketibu, used to be a family land, initially registered under Tekoburitau Tekaitabontemwaneaba, the ancestor of the appellants and respondent as well from her maternal side. It is also claimed that this land plot had never been distributed or apportioned amongst Tekoburitau’s issues. The land register, however, shows that Biketibu has been apportioned into 774i, 774o, 774u, 774m, 774n, and 774b - each having several sub-portions which are severally numbered from 1 upwards like that. Tebwebwe Taam, the respondent, is registered over Biketibu 744n after her deceased mother, Terengantaake (brother of Eren), who inherited the land from their ancestors who were lawfully registered over this said land plot 774n. When demanded by the Court to prove their ownership over Biketibu 774n, the appellants could not produce convincing evidence to support their ownership, nor could they produce compelling evidence to prove their fraud allegation against the respondent’s registration or that of their ancestor's ownership over Biketibu 774n.
1.3. Accordingly, the Magistrates Court could not be convinced by the appellants of their alleged fraud claim against the respondent and, therefore, ruled that the case be dismissed due to insufficient evidence. The appellants are not satisfied with this judgment, hence this appeal case.

2. The Appeal
2.1. Grounds of Appeal
2.1.1. There are four grounds of appeal, as quoted below:
“(1) The Magistrates Court erred in law and in fact, in failing to take into consideration previous records of the Commission that the land in dispute was owned by the appellant's ancestors;
(2) The Court erred in law and fact in failing to take into account the respondent’s registration in disputed Land Commission minutes where the elders of the respondents who had submitted false statements that the Land Commission relied on leading to their registration over the disputed land at Biketibu; and
(3) The Court erred in law and in fact in failing to consider the family tree of the respondent, who had no relationship with the former landowner;
(4) That the evidence indicated that the registration of the respondents over the disputed land was tainted with fraud.”

2.2. Submission in support of the Appeal
2.2.1. For grounds 1, the appellants heavily rely on Birikiti Biribo’s sworn evidence and Land Commission records to prove that the appellants’ ancestors own the land in dispute. It is claimed that the land Biketibu 774 (now apportioned into several sub-plots) used to be one whole land owned by the appellants’ ancestor, Tekoburitau Tekaitabontemwaneaba. The appellants told the Court that the respondent and ancestors have no family connection with the said Tekoburitau; hence, they are not the rightful inheritors of Tekoburintau’s property, including Biketibu 774. In other words, the whole of Biketibu 774 belongs to Tekoburitau and issues.

2.2.2. For grounds 2, again, the appellants rely on Birikiti Biribo’s sworn statement, which claims that the Court failed to take into account the Land Commission’s minutes (which could not be produced when demanded by the court). The minutes are claimed to show that the respondents’ elders had submitted false statements of fact that misled the Land Commission and resulted in their registration over the land plot in dispute, Biketibu 774n.

2.2.3. Being closely related to grounds 1 and 2, the appellants also heavily rely on Birikiti Biribo’s said sworn statement and the Land Commission records to support grounds 3 and 4, claiming that registration of the respondent, Tebwebwe Taam, and ancestors over Biketibu 774n is fraudulent as, according to their (appellants’) family tree tendered as evidence, they are not related to Tekoburitau Tekaitabontemaneaba.

2.3. Submission against the Appeal
2.3.1. The respondents argue that the Magistrates Court did consider all relevant evidence, including Birikiti Biribo’s sworn statement and documentary evidence (family tree, land register, court minutes, etc.), produced by the appellants. However, none of this evidence relates to Biketibu 774n, from which the appellants want the respondent to be deregistered, but instead to Biketibu 774m.

2.3.2 Being irrelevant, coupled with the failure of the appellants to produce the required Land Commission minutes in support of their claim that Tebwebwe Taam and ancestors have been registered over Biketibu 774n by way of fraud, the Magistrates Court has, therefore, ruled against their claim for the deregistration of the respondents from the said disputed land. So, all in all, the respondents argue that the issues pointed out in the appellants’ grounds of appeal have all been considered by the Magistrates Court’s judgment in Betlan 340/2022.

3. The Court’s Analysis

3.1. From the Magistrates Court’s judgment, including evidence produced by the appellants, it is apparent that the appellants could NOT establish or point out to the Magistrates Court that there had indeed been a false statement of fact knowingly made by the respondent and ancestors, with intent to deceive the Land Commission or Court so that their registration over Biketibu 774n was allowed – such act which they knew was dishonest and morally wrong.

3.2. Based on court minutes 88/98, 454/97, and 117/68, tendered by the appellants to support their claim, the respondent and ancestors have been lawfully registered over this disputed land, Biketibu 774n. Besides, the argument of the appellants to deregister Tebwebwe from Biketibu 774n, being not related to Tekoburitau Tekaitabontemaneaba as the father is Taam, not Roua, cannot be considered as they could not deny the fact that the father of Tebwebwe’s mother, Terengantaake, is the descendant of Nawaia who is also one of the issues of the said Tekoburitau.

3.3. From both the minutes and judgment in Betlan 340/2022, this Court concludes that all relevant evidence produced by the appellants were taken into account by the Magistrates Court in its decision. So, in its final analysis, this Court concludes that not only did the appellants fail to produce the required Land Commission minutes in support of their claim of fraud against the respondent, but they also failed to prove that the respondent, including ancestors, had knowingly made false statements of fact with intent to deceive the Land Commission firstly and later the Court proceedings of 88/98, 454/97 and 117/68 so that they got registered over Biketibu 774n.

3.4. Accordingly, this Court agrees with the magistrate court that no convincing evidence was produced to justify the deregistration of the respondent, Tebwebwe Taam, from land plot Biketibu 774n.

ORDER

For the reasons mentioned above, the Court rules as follows:

1. the appeal is not allowed, and
   
2. the decision in Case Number Betlan 340 of 2022 is reaffirmed accordingly.
   
3. Cost to the Respondent, to be taxed if not agreed.
   

THE HON TETIRO SEMILOTA MAATE MOANIBA
Chief Justice

TITAN TOAKAI RITETI MANINRAKA
Land Appeal Magistrate Land Appeal Magistrate