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

Kairaoi v Taam [2025] KIHC 24; Land Appeal 05382 of 2024 (12 May 2025)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI

High Court Land Appeal No 2024 - 05382

BETWEEN: TEITIRENGA KAIRAOI AND OTHERS
Appellants

AND: TONGANIBEIA TAAM mtmm
Respondents

Date of Hearing: 15 April 2025
Date of Judgment: 12 May 2025

Appearances: Ms Maere Kirata for the Appellants
Mr Banuera Berina for the Respondents

JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. This is an appeal against the judgment delivered by the Magistrates; Court in Betlan 338/22, (incorrectly mentioned as 388/22 by the appellant) in which an eviction order was granted against the appellants on the basis that they were unlawfully occupying the respondent’s land, known as Temwatiang 747a/2.

Backgroung

2. The respondents brought proceedings in the Magistrate’s Court seeking the eviction of the appellants from land which they claimed to be the rightful owners of, based on the previous boundary determination and the certificate of ownership.
   
3. The appellants resisted the claim, arguing that their occupation was lawful, that the boundary of the land had not been determined, and that the matter was subject to the ongoing related proceeding and previous court hearings.

Grounds of appeal

4. The appellants appealed the decision on the following grounds:
   
   • (1) The Single Magistrates erred in law in proceeding with the eviction case in the absence of any boundary determination being made in order for the court to ascertain that the appellants are residing within the land of the respondent.
     
   • (2) The Single Magistrate erred in law in basing its findings on irrelevant considerations such as eviction decisions of the same court against the appellant from other lands but not hearing the case afresh based on evidence before it.
     
   • (3) The Single Magistrate erred in law in holding that previous evictions against the Appellants carried weight to believe the Respondent’s side of the story.
     
   • (4) The Single Magistrate erred in law by failing to decide on the point of law as whether the eviction claim brought by the Respondent in the Betlan 388/22 (should be Betlan 338/22) was res judicata in the same way the other party with the same interest has instigated eviction proceedings against the Appellants and such eviction was stayed by another court with same jurisdiction.
     
   • (5) The Single Magistrate erred in law in ordering that he has no jurisdiction to override, OR make, as the Appellants have been evicted by other parties owning Temwatiang 747a/1, and the boundary of such land has never been determined with the Respondent’s land.
     
   • (6) AND PRAY that the decision in Betlan 388/22 (should be 338/22) be set aside
     
   • (7) Cost.

Submission for the appellant

5. Counsel submitted that the eviction order was premature and unlawful in the absence of a clear determination of the land boundary. She argued that no sufficient evidence established that the appellants were trespassing.
   
6. She further submitted that the Magistrate relied wrongly on findings from earlier cases (MA 155/27 and MA 30/21), which involved different circumstances and parties.
   
7. Counsel also argued that the Magistrate’s reliance on prior eviction unfairly prejudiced the appellants, who should have had their case determined solely on the evidence presented in Betlan 338/22.
   
8. Ms Kirata raised the issue of res judicata, contending that the matter had already been decided by the court or was pending before the court in MA 27/22 and could not be brought up again.
   
9. Finally, she submitted that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to hear the case while a stay order in MA 27/22 is in place.
   

Submission for the Respondent

10. Mr Berina submitted that the land in question clearly belonged to the respondents and that the appellants were unlawfully occupying it. He maintained that the evidence supported the eviction order.
    
11. He argued that the boundary dispute did not affect the respondents’ entitlement to possession of land, and the appellants’ occupation was unjustified.
    
12. Regarding res judicata, he contended that the parties in MA 27/22 were not identical to those in the current case, and the respondents had a right to assert their ownership independently.
    
13. Mr Berina also argued that the stay order in MA 27/22 did not prevent the court from hearing and determining Betlan 338/22. He concluded that the Magistrate acted within jurisdiction and that the appeal should be dismissed.

Issues for Determination

14. The Court is required to determine the following:

(i) Whether the Magistrate erred in granting the eviction order without determining the boundary of the disputed land;
(ii) Whether relying on previous cases prejudiced the appellants’ right;
(iii) Whether res judicata or the stay order in MA 27/22 rendered the proceedings invalid;
(iv) Whether the Magistrate exceeded jurisdiction,

Analysis

15. On the first issue, the Court finds that the land in question, Temwatiang 747a/2, was correctly identified as belonging to the respondents, as evidenced by their certificate of ownership. The appellants entered and occupied the land without establishing any lawful claim or demonstrating that the land they occupied was theirs, Manoku, and not Temwatiang. The Magistrate rightly accepted that the respondents had lived on the land prior to the appellants in 2017, while the appellants arrived later in 2021. This was when the respondent initiated an eviction case against them in MA 30/21. Therefore, the Magistrate court was correct in finding that the appellants were trespassing and unlawfully occupying the land, as determined in MA 30/21, consequently granting the eviction order in Betlan 338/22.
    
16. On the second issue, the Court finds that the Magistrate appropriately referred to earlier proceedings, MA 154/21, wherein the appellants entered the land Tamoa 478i/2, also belonging to the respondent. In MA 154/21, the magistrate court advised the appellants to do the boundary determination of their land, Manoku, to ascertain its location before entering the land Tamoa 478i/2 owned by the respondent. The appellants had not provided evidence that they had done this before entering Temwatiang 747a/2, also owned by the respondent. Such references were relevant and necessary to provide context and did not result in any procedural unfairness or prejudice to the appellants. It became clear that the appellants moved out of the land Tamoa 478i/2 when the eviction order was made against them in MA 154/21 and moved onto Temwatiang 747a/2 without first ascertaining the location and boundary of their land Manoku.
    
17. On the third issue, the Court is satisfied that MA 154/21 concerned the eviction of the appellants from Tamoa 748i/2, while MA 30/21 related to the eviction of the appellants from Temwatiang 747a/2. These matters involved different parcels of land and therefore do not bar or prevent the current proceedings in Betlan 338/22. Furthermore, no evidence indicates that the stay order issued in MA 27/22 had any binding effect on Betlan 338/22. Accordingly, the doctrine of res judicata does not apply.
    
18. Regarding the fourth issue, there is no indication that the Magistrate acted beyond her jurisdiction. The proceedings were conducted lawfully, and the orders were issued within her powers, based on the evidence and applicable legal principles.
    
19. The Court agrees that the appellants should not have occupied the land without first conducting a proper boundary determination to ascertain the precise location of their land, Manoku. If such steps had been taken, the present dispute could have been avoided, and any occupation would have been based on a lawful claim, if substantiated.
    

Conclusion

20. For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds no error in law or procedure in the Magistrate’s decision. The eviction order was lawfully granted on the basis that the respondents are the rightful owners of Temwatiang 747a/2, as supported by their certificate of ownership. The respondents have occupied this land since 2017, while the appellants moved onto it later in 2021, claiming it to be their land, Manoku. The appellants’ failure to identify and establish the boundaries of their land, Manoku, justified the order requiring them to vacate Temwatiang 747a/2.
    

Orders

1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The decision of the Magistrate’s Court in Betlan 338/22, including the eviction order, is affirmed.
3. Cost is awarded to the respondent, to be agreed or taxed.
   

THE HON. TEITIRO SEMILOTA MAATE MOANIBA
Chief Justice

TEAUAMA IOTEBA ARIAN ARINTETAAKE
Land Appeal Magistrate Land Appeal Magistrate