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

Tanging v Yee-On [2025] KIHC 74; Land Review 4 of 2021 (10 November 2025)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI
LAND JURISDICTION

HIGH COURT LAND REVIEW 4 of 2021

BETWEEN: Tebwaki Moiwa Tanging
Applicant

AND: Jackson Yee-On and Atauea mtmm
Respondents

Date of Hearing: 16 September 2025
Date of Judgment: 10 November 2025

Appearances: Ms Elsie Karakaua for the Applicant Ms TaoingTaoaba for the Respondents

JUDGMENT

BRIEF BACKGROUND

1. This is an application for a judicial review of the magistrate's case of Betlan 317/20 dated May 30, 2020.
   
2. The proceeding concerns the land distribution of Terereua 631/i at Temwakiku and boundary determination.
   
3. The applicant was not summoned to such court proceedings as an interested party; therefore, he was aggrieved by the decision.
4. The applicant relies on the following grounds supporting his request for a judicial review, as his land has decreased in size.
   

APPLICATIONS FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW pursuant to sec 81 of the Magistrate Court Ordinance Cap 52

.

5. The applicant moves this honorable court for an order to quash the proceedings in the Magistrate Court in the case Betlan 317/20, the decision of which was delivered on May 30, 2020, on the following grounds;
   
   1. The Respondents filed an application for the distribution of their lands, namely Terereua 631/1/1a/5.
   2. The applicant is an interested party because he owns the land Terereua 631/1/1a/5, which adjoins the respondent's land.
   100. The applicant was never served for the onsite hearing.
   4. Some of his relatives stayed on his land and were informed that a summon will be served on them at the next hearing date.
   5. A summon was never properly served during the on-site proceedings.
   6. During the hearing, the court considered the application and delivered judgment on July 30, 2020, delineating the boundaries of the applicant’s land in his absence.
   7. As a result, the land shrank by 13 meters in length and 6.8 meters in width.
   8. The applicant was not summoned to the proceedings despite being an interested party.
   9. The applicant must be summoned as a party because his interest is adversely affected.
   10. Injustice shall be occasioned if Betlan 317/20 were not reviewed.
   11. Applicant relies on his affidavit to support his case.
       

Applicant’s Submission

6. The applicant was a respondent in Betlan 317/20 but was not summoned as a potential party because he owns a plot of land called Terereua 631/i/1a/5, which adjoins the applicant’s land, now the respondent.
   
7. His attendance is essential to clarify his boundary with the respondent, since their plots are adjacent. Proof of service was provided only for the other parties, without mentioning the applicant’s name. Relatives of the applicant living on his land were assured they would be summoned for the next hearing, but they were not. The court heard the case in his absence, denying him the opportunity to present his side regarding the boundary of the land he purchased from Tekeewa. The respondent bought his portion from Airam.
   
8. He attended the beginning of the proceedings but then missed the continuation of the hearing and its conclusion after being assured he would not be affected. However, the outcome impacted the land size, length, and width of the applicant’s property, prompting the filing of this judicial review.

Respondent’s Submission

9. The respondent submits that they bought lands from siblings, Airam and Tekeeua. The applicant purchased his portion from Tekeewa, while the respondent bought his from Airam. He took out proceedings to determine his boundary.
   
10. Other siblings also owned the land, so the magistrates' court decided on the distribution between the siblings and the boundary determination of their shares.
    
11. The other siblings, Akamwa and Ranatu presented and pointed out how the distribution should be made.
    

Court’s Analysis.

12. The Court of Appeal in the case Tebanna v Tebanna [2021] KICA 8 sets out in paragraphs 29 and 30 the following relevant statement.
    

“Before we consider whether the service of the distribution application was validly affected, we explain why service is so fundamental to the proper workings of any court system.

It is a basic principle of law that before making orders that will affect others, a court must ensure any potential opposing party has an opportunity to be heard. This is known as the audi alteram principle. It is a fundamental rule of natural justice. Orders made without hearing from parties who might be affected adversely from them are made only in exceptional circumstance, and usually on an interim basis. Final orders made on exparte basis carry a substantial risk of causing a miscarriage of justice. Judges can only know what orders are appropriate if they have all relevant facts and legal arguments put before them for consideration by all affected parties.”

13. Likewise, the Applicant was an opposing and potential party in this case who ought to be given an opportunity to be heard in respect of his land boundary and land size.
    
14. The fundamental principle of the rules of natural justice was breached since the applicant was denied the opportunity to give evidence in court. He was not summoned or notified about the hearing of this case. The court proceeded only with the respondent from the beginning until the conclusion of the case.
    

Finding

15. The application for a judicial review is granted. The decision in 317/20 is quashed.
    
16. The case is remitted to the Magistrate's Court for a retrial. Interested parties, including the applicant, are to be summoned.
    
17. Cost is awarded to the applicant, to be taxed if no agreement is reached.
    

Order Accordingly.

HON. TETIRO SEMILOTA MAATE MOANIBA

Chief Justice

TAIBO TEBAOBAO TABAKITOA TEMOKOU

Land Appeal Magistrate Land Appeal Magistrate