![]() |
[Home]
[Databases]
[WorldLII]
[Search]
[Feedback]
[Report an error]
[F.A.Q.]
Supreme Court of Nauru |
[Recent Decisions] [Noteup] [Download] [Help]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NAURU
Land Appeal No. 20 of 1970
DIBEBE BEIYOUN
v.
ADEANG DEIREREGEA AND OTHERS
20th November,
1970.
Appeal
against decision of Nauru Lands Committee - appeal out of time - no jurisdiction
to grant leave to appeal - section 7 of the
Nauru Lands Committee Ordinance 1956
- 1963 - application may be made for decision which is a nullity to be declared
void.
Application for leave to
appeal out of time against decisions of the Nauru Lands Committee. The Committee
made a number of decisions
in 1957, 1961, 1967 and 1968 about certain portions
of land. The applicant claimed that the proceedings of the Nauru Lands Committee
were irregular and the decisions a nullity because she was not aware of her
interest in the land at the time and so did not know
that she should attend
before the Committee to present her claim to the land. At all material times she
had the means available to
her of ascertaining her interest in the
land.
Held:
(1) The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal out of time
against a decision of the Nauru Lands Committee. The
Court's jurisdiction to
entertain appeals against the Committee's decisions is derived entirely from
section 7 of the Nauru Lands
Committee Ordinance 1956 - 1963. That section sets
a limit of 21 days for appeals to be commenced; it does not give the Court any
discretion to extend that
period.
(2) Where proceedings of
the Nauru Lands Committee are so irregular that they ought to be regarded as a
nullity, the Supreme Court
may, upon application made to it, declare void the
decision made in those
proceedings.
(3) In the present
case, the proceedings of the Committee were not irregular. The failure by the
applicant to take part in the proceedings
was due to her own fault, not to any
refusal by the Committee to give her an opportunity to do
so.
R. Akiri for the
applicant
K.R. Adeang for the
respondents
Thompson
CJ.:
This is an application for
leave to appeal out of time against determinations of the Lands Committee and
the Nauru Lands Committee
published in Gazettes Nos. 15 and 36 of 1957, 43 and
53 of 1958, 15 of 1961, 27 and 54 of 1967 and 36 of 1968 in respect of the
following
portions of land:
Anmere, P.L., Portion's Nos. 53 and 53A in Baiti District;
Ungon, P.L., Portion No. 108 in Nibok District;
Iareidubu, C.L., Portion No. 114 in Baiti District;
Aturubu, C.L., Portion No. 154 in Baiti District;
Anud, C.L., Portion No. 144 in Uaboe District;
Arep, C.L., Portion No. 84 in Anabar District;
Betio, P.L., Portion No. 181 in Baiti District;
Eatetedij, P.L., Portion No. 202 in Baiti District.
The
applicant is the only surviving daughter of the sister of a woman named Meta who
died in 1917. She claims that the portions of
land in respect of which she
wishes to appeal belonged to Meta; that on Meta's death they passed to her
husband, Deireragea; and
that on Deireragea's death in about 1942 they should
have reverted to Meta's family, of which she is now the sole survivor. Instead,
the portions have been determined by the Lands Committee and the Nauru Lands
Committee as forming part of the estate of Deireragea,
so that his sons and
their issue are the present
owners.
The time for appealing to
the Supreme Court against the determination by the Nauru Lands Committee of
questions of ownership of land
is limited by section 7 of the Nauru Lands
Committee Ordinance 1956-1963 to 21 days. No provision is made in that Ordinance
or any other law for the Supreme Court to have power to extend that time. It is
only, therefore, in cases where there was such irregularity in the proceedings
before the Nauru Lands Committee that its determination
can be regarded as a
nullity, which the Supreme Court should declare void, that an extension of time
can properly be granted in order
to enable that declaration to be
made.
In this present case the
applicant alleges that the proceedings before the Lands Committee and the Nauru
Lands Committee were irregular
because she was not given any opportunity to
attend and present her case to it. She says that she did not know which portions
belonged
to Meta and that the Nauru Lands Committee would not tell her. Her
another died at about the same time as Deireragea but a son of
her mother's
brother, who would have had an equal interest in Meta's land, was alive and died
only last year. She had, therefore,
a close relative from whom she might have
ascertained the information. In respect of three of the portions of land the
Gazette Notice
showed Meta as the previous
owner.
If this Court were to
regard the proceedings of the Nauru Lands Committee as irregular whenever some
one or more persons who subsequently
alleged that he had an interest in the
subject matter of the proceedings was not aware of that interest at the time of
the proceedings,
the door would be open to many people to challenge old
decisions of the Committee on which the people concerned have based their
affairs for years. The stability and certainty which the Nauru Lands Committee
Ordinance is intended to provide in land matters would
be shaken, if not
destroyed.
In this present case I
am not satisfied that there was any such irregularity in the proceedings of the
Lands Committee or the Nauru
Lands Committee on any occasion as to render its
determinations in respect of the portions in question void. Furthermore, the
determinations
of the Committee were not bad on their face as, in spite of the
applicant's assertion that Deireregea had only a life interest in
the land, it
is by no means certain that the concept of life interests was not introduced
into Nauruan custom after
1920.
This is not a case,
therefore, in which this Court should extend the time for appealing.
Accordingly, the application is dismissed
in respect of all the
determinations.
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback|
Report an error
URL: http://www.paclii.org/nr/cases/NRSC/1970/4.html