Ngati Karika lose and Ngati Paroro win in controversial Te Puna case

The court has awarded the Te Puna lands to the family collectively known as Ngati Paroro descended from the union of a lady called Te Kuraveri and her husband Paroro.
This is the long awaited decision made pursuant to Te Puna Lands Act 1980 and made by Justice Hingston and delivered in the High Court on Monday 8 March 2010.
All other claims have been dismissed including that of Karika Ariki of Te Au o Tonga and her family who were represented by Ian Karika (Willmot) and other families including the Ngati Raina, Iaveta Short and others.
Ian Karika represented Karika Ariki and family, but the other two parties were represented by legal counsel Tina Browne and Ngati Raina and co represented by legal counsel Ross Holmes who is based in New Zealand.
Ngati Paroro were represented by Mrs Tere Carr (now a registered land agent) who represented her family in the case who was able to prove continuous occupation on Te Puna lands by the family stretching back for many generations. Carr claimed for two people in particular: first was Tereapii Ritea (descendant of Te Kura who was the daughter to Matauri) and her 3rd husband, Bob Takaroa. The second claimant was Mata Short from Matauri from her second husband, Ngatama.
Mata’s mother was Tutai (adopted by Ukura and her husband Tonga but whose birth parents were Aiteina Raina and Tua (a daughter of Te Kura).
The ruling refers to the evidence and exhibits produced including Minute Books accepted genealogy which satisfied the Court of their claim. In the view of the court, the persons entitled to Te Puna lands must be able to prove descent from Takuraveri whose father Te Kurupare is from the land of Te Puna which is consistent with MB8/228A (the definitive genealogy in her case).
In her union with Paroro, Takuraveri had a daughter named Maineiti who married Te Kope. Their daughter Matauri had three husbands: Enoka, Ngatama and Bob Takaroa.
According to Carr’s evidence, of 10 persons granted life interests by 1908 by Chief Judge Gudgeon, 4 were either members of the Te Kurapare family or married into the family. Another three given similar grants were siblings of Ria but had died no issue. A male life tenant call Tu could not be identified other than he was not a member of the Te Kurapare family.
The final life tenant was Taanu Raina (aka Taarua) who married Ngatama, however, Taanu Raina is not of the Te Kurapare family. This evidence was not seriously challenged by any of the other claimants.
The descendants of Jimmy Tu Rei and his first wife, Ngata (a daughter of Matauri) but children of Jimmy Te Rei by another woman are not entitled. Similarly children of Pivai are entitled (but not those of Ria in another marriage) and the issue of Ukura and Tonga (but not from Tonga if they are from any subsequent union).The issue of Te Kura and Rautu (but not of any subsequent marriage of Rautu). The issue of Ateina Raina and spouse Tu are entitled to claim ownership
The children of Maui (another life interest) and his marriage to Ngata are also entitled. However, the children from Maui’s second wife are not of the Te Kura line and thus excluded Mesdames Parker and Maeva who are descendants of Te Puna (Paroro) are also entitled to succeed.
Who’s in and who’s out
The judge found no merit in the claims of the Akearangi group who founded their claims on conquest and continued occupation, but their case was not proven. The ruling found that the land they referred to was not Te Puna land. Nor did the court accept the claim about their four Mataiapo claim.
In the claim by the Karika family, the judge held that it is clear they were not in occupation of Te Puna lnds in 1908. In his opinion, their claim was spurious and more about intimidation than customary ownership as Te Puna land was not in the tapere of the Makea family.
The claim by Ngati Te Puna relied on a ‘hooked’ or false genealogy and there it too had no merit. Families involved in this group were that of Iaveta Short and others who were represented by Tina Browne.
All parties excluded are in shock and say they will appeal the decision. They have three weeks in which to do so.