Landcourt Reports

Manihiki landowners compensated

The landowners of Manihiki motu where the government built a cyclone centre will be paid compensation $15,000 plus 8% interest from time of acquisition by Cook Islands Investment Corporation.

Justice Savage made the order for compensation for the compulsory takeover of the land pursuant to s359 of the Cook Islands Act 1915 where no land can be taken without compensation to the owners.
CIIC was represented by acting CEO and qualified lawyer, Lloyd Miles who told the court that government had come to the aid of the people of Manihiki by building the cyclone centre and any compensation ought to be calculated accordingly.
The money for the project was from NZAID on condition that CIIC obtain secure tenure of the said land and at one stage CIIC recommended taking the land by warrant.
Justice Savage pointed out that while there had been benefits to some, on the other hand, there was loss of land to the land owners. He asked their representative, Tina Browne, why she had not applied for compensation for the landowners.
She said there had been email correspondence back and forth but CIIC had made a counter-offer of $10,000 and the parties could not reach agreement.
The court awarded costs of $1000 against CIIC.

Ngati Makea v CICC over Te Puka

The court was crowded on Wednesday afternoon for the case between Cook Islands Christian Church (CICC), Cook Islands Investment Corporation (CIIC) and Ngati Makea over the ownership of the lands in Te Puka. .
Amongst other things, Te Puka is the land where the Multi Purpose Stadium is located and the four Kopu Ariki families appear to be asking for some sort of compensation for the use of their land.
The matter has been the subject of much debate with the Ngati Makea contending that the CICC was given conditional ownership of the land by Makea Nui Abela Ariki but they have not abided by those conditions.
Objections were received from Hugh Baker of the Upokotoa line of Makea and others and were represented by Tina Browne and may also be representing the Mere clan of Ngati Makea.
Baker told the court that it was his understanding that Tim Arnold would be representing the Rangi Makea line in the matter but was not in court on the day.
The court said the question of ownership would have to be the subject of an application to the High Court which would determine the matter and no such application has yet been made.
Ngati Makea are likely to an uphill battle considering that Justice Savage commenting right now, title is vested in the church and no court has overruled that issue. The objectors would need to file proceedings in the court to do so.
The case has been adjourned till the next available land court sitting in 2010. In the meantime, both parties are to provide independent valuations of the land in question.
Counsel for the Upokotokoa and Mere clans thanked the court saying it was a step forward and that CIIC will do their own valuation. The other clan is the Sadaraka family but it is unclear whether they have representation. The church and government are represented by Lloyd Miles who is acting CEO and legal officer at CIIC.

Application adds to long running land dispute

An application for partition of Tumu lands in Takuvaine raised heated debate in court on Wednesday. Mere Raita is applying for partition but is opposed by the Utanga family and another clan.
Justice Savage noted that the application was from 2001 and he had no record that the matter has ever been called.
Counsel, Tina Browne said the land has been the subject of an injunction restraining dealings and as a result, the matter has been put on hold. Landowners have since passed on and their successors in title would like as ay on the partition of those areas.
The 390A application was heard by Williams CJ and then on to the Court of Appeal and the status quo remains (existing leases and occupation rights and existing access ways on the said land) and produced a survey map of a deed of lease to the court.
Charles Petero appeared for the Utanga clan and asked the court to give all the landowners a chance to consider the matter. Justice Savage said the land has been part of litigation for the past 8 years and it is hard now to say they have not their chance over this time. Objectors included John Scott for his wife, Tara and Maria Nicholas who appeared on behalf of her own family.
Maria said it was about ‘transparency’ with the other landowners wanting to be informed of the proposed dealings and that if considered in the ‘wider context’ the applicant and her family has more than their entitlement. The other families want a court hearing to determine the relative interests of all the landowners over all the lands, before the court can grant any such partition.
All 3 branches are to have their applications to determine their relative interests and must be cross referenced to the relevant registers of title by the end of January 2010.

Occupation right application on Makea land comes unstuck

An application to add an adjoining site to another existing occupation right in Tupapa, came unstuck in the High Court last week. Land agent, Mata John told the court that his client had majority consent of 6 out of 9 landowners and showed their various succession orders over the years.
The client has a house on the land that she lets her nieces and nephews live in and has majority consent to add the adjoining occupation right that used to belong to another relative, but which the family cancelled 4 years ago.
However, Justice Savage noted that not only did he not have the permission of Teanakore, the original occupier, but the original Atu Enua on the register of title is Makea who had not been asked for consent. And was this title land?
No, it was not title land and while Makea is the nominal owner, he is acting as a trustee for his people and the land was intended to be used as occupation rights for the villagers and besides there is no Makea at the moment to ask permission.
Justice Savage said he is not convinced that an occupation right confers an interest in the land and sees it as a personal right considering the occupiers are not landowners. The matter was stood down for the agent to take legal advice and John could ‘educate’ the judge on the matter.
Outside the court, John seemed shocked at the turn of events and said the land is what is known as Taura Oire dating from the mission days who wanted the Ariki to provide land for the villagers (especially from other islands) to be able to live near the church. They have such a system under Tinomana and they have always succeeded to their interests but this has never affected the occupation rights of those on the land or of the successors.

Headlines : Times 290 02 March 2009
- Lucky $1,000 winner
- Century old palm trees and the French connection
- Koutu Nui takes part in Raui meeting in Moorea
- WOM Award Dinner for Ake Hosea-Winterflood
- Island of Atiu to host Koutu Nui AGM in June 2009