	Home \| Databases \| WorldLII \| Search \| Feedback Supreme Court of Nauru

Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Supreme Court of Nauru

You are here: PacLII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Nauru >> 1969 >> [1969] NRSC 4

Re Mwareow [1969] NRSC 4; [1969-1982] NLR (B) 3 (8 May 1969)

[1969-1982] NLR (B) 3

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NAURU

Land Appeal No. 6 of 1969

MWAREOW
Appellant

8th May, 1969.

Decision of Lands Committee in 1929 - appeal to Administrator against the decision unsuccessful - decision contrary of decision of the German Administration - effect of section 8 of the Nauru Lands Committee Ordinance 1956-1963.

Appeal against a decision of the Nauru Lands Committee as to the ownership of certain portions of land. At the time when Nauru was a German colony, a dispute over the ownership of the land between the appellant's mother and other Nauruans was decided by the German Administration in favour of the latter and against the appellant's mother. In 1928, when the Land Registration Book was prepared by the Chiefs on the directions of the Administrator, those in whose favour that decision had been given were recorded as the owners. In 1929 the Administrator directed the Lands Committee to investigate and decide afresh the ownership of the land. The Lands Committee decided in favour of the appellant's mother. The decision was published in the Gazette, with a notice that any person dissatisfied with it could appeal to the Administrator within a time stated. One of the persons who had been shown in the Land Registration Book as an owner appealed; his appeal was unsuccessful. In 1963, 1965 and 1966 the Nauru Lands Committee identified and demarcated the portions of land, and published in the Gazette a notice of their location and ownership. The owners were stated to be those who were shown in the Land Registration Book as owners or their successors in title, and not the appellant (as successor in title of his mother).

Held: While it was possibly regrettable that the Administrator had reopened in 1928 the question of ownership decided by the German Administration, the decisions of the Administrator on appeals against decisions of the Land Committee had been validated, and declared to be final, by section 8 of the Nauru Lands Committee Ordinance 1956-1963. The Nauru Lands Committee, therefore, had no jurisdiction to change the decision given in 1929.

Appeal allowed.

Appi for the appellant
K.R. Adeang for the respondents

Thompson Ag. CJ.:

This appeal is the consolidation of three separate appeals. It is against determinations of the Nauru Lands Committee published in Government Gazettes Nos. 29 of 1963, 33 of 1965 and 52 of 1966. These determinations related to the ownership of the following portions of land in Nibok District:

Atebwae, portion No. 194

Ueingom, portion No. 195

Ueingom, portion No. 196

Atebwae, portion No. 197

Ianaeae, portion No. 199

Uganaquo, portion No. 209

Ueingom, portion No. 210

Ueingom, portion No. 234

The appellant claims that all those portions of land are comprised in a large block called Atebae, the ownership of which was awarded to him by the Lands Committee in 1929. It appears that at some time under the German Administration a dispute about the land Atebae and other land arose between the appellant's mother and a number of other people and that the dispute was adjudicated upon by the Germans, who ruled that the land did not belong to the appellant's mother. The ownership as decided then remained unchanged until 1928, when the Land Registration Book was compiled. The following year, however, the Administrator was apparently prevailed upon to reopen the matter. The Lands Committee then decided to reverse the decision given by the German authorities and appellant. The respondents, the persons shown as the owners in the Committee's determinations against which this appeal is being taken, are the successors of those shown in the Land Registration Book as being the owners in 1928.

The Committee's decision has obviously been unpopular, with allegations that the appellant's cousin, who was Head Chief, improperly influenced it; the present Committee has apparently declined to be bound by it. However, a notice was published in Government Gazette No. 22 of 1929 stating that the appellant would be registered as owner of the land Atebae, and a number of other blocks, on 1st July, 1929, and that any person wishing to appeal against this had to do so before that date. The twenty-fifth respondent stated that he did appeal but unsuccessfully.

Possibly it is unfortunate that the matter was reopened in 1929, so many years after the decision was given by the German authorities. But it must be accepted that it was reopened, the dispute was decided afresh and opportunity given to appeal. It would, in my view, be quite wrong at this stage, after 40 years, to reverse that decision. This Court must, I consider, accept as final the Land Committee's decision in 1929 that the block called Atebae belongs to the appellant. Furthermore, whatever decisions were given by the Central Court or the Administrator on appeal against the Lands Committee's determinations have been validated by section 8 of the Nauru Lands Committee Ordinance 1956 - 1963 and are final.

The only matter not completely clear is the extent of the block called Atebae. The appellant claims that it includes all the portions which are the subject of this appeal. He said that the boundaries were surveyed; no plan can be found in the Survey Department. However, the twenty-fifth respondent, who was a Chief and a member of the Lands Committee from 1931 until quite recently and who attended the field day in 1929 when the block called Atebae was demarcated, gave evidence that the four portions named Ueingom, portions Nos. 195, 196 and 210 and 234 and the portions named Atebwae, portions Nos. 194 and 197, were within the boundaries of the land awarded to the appellant and that parts of the portions named Ianaeae and Uganaquo, portions Nos. 199 and 209, were also within them. He said that Egaga, the previous owner of portion No. 194, and Eididu, one of the previous owners of portion 195, appealed unsuccessfully against the Committee's decision.

The other respondents did not give or adduce any evidence to contradict that given by the twenty-fifth respondents. I have no doubt that portions Nos. 194, 195, 196, 197, 210 and 234 are entirely within the block called Atebae of which the appellant has been owner since 1929 and that parts of portions 199 and 209 are also within those boundaries.

I therefore allow the appeal and order that the following portions: