unitedstatessecurities

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

KINZA CLODUMAR v NAURU LANDS COMMITTEE & ORS

Posted on 12:47 AM by Unknown

20 June 2012 [2012] HCA 22

On 20 April 2012, the High Court allowed an appeal by Kinza Clodumar from the Supreme Court of Nauru. A majority of the High Court held that, on appeal from the Supreme Court of Nauru, the High Court may receive evidence that was not before the Supreme Court, where that evidence was not discoverable by the exercise of reasonable diligence on the part of the party seeking now to adduce the evidence. Today, the High Court published its reasons for allowing the appeal.

Mr Clodumar is a citizen of Nauru. In 2000, Mr Clodumar commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of Nauru, to prevent the Nauru Lands Committee from distributing certain interests in land. The Nauru Lands Committee ("the Committee") is a statutory body empowered, under Nauruan legislation, to determine questions concerning land ownership. Mr Clodumar claimed that certain interests in the land had been transferred to him by the previous, now deceased, landowner. The Supreme Court held that the asserted transfer was void because there was no evidence that the President of Nauru had consented to the transfer. Under s 3 of the Lands Act 1976 (Nauru), the President's consent in writing is required for the transfer of any interest or estate in Nauruan land. However, for other reasons, the Supreme Court ordered the Committee not to distribute the land and to call a meeting of interested parties to determine the ownership of the land.

In 2010, following these meetings, the Committee re-determined the distribution of the land. The distribution did not give effect to the transfer asserted by Mr Clodumar, who appealed to the Supreme Court of Nauru. According to Mr Clodumar, during the course of this hearing in the Supreme Court, he was given some documents by a pleader of the Supreme Court. One of the documents was a copy of a signed Presidential Approval of the asserted transfer of interests in the disputed land to Mr Clodumar ("the Approval"). The Supreme Court adjourned the further hearing of the appeal to allow Mr Clodumar to appeal to the High Court from the Supreme Court's decision in 2000. Pursuant to s 5 of the Nauru (High Court Appeals) Act 1976 (Cth) ("the Nauru Appeals Act"), appeals lie to the High Court from the Supreme Court of Nauru.

In the High Court, the Committee did not contest the authenticity of the Approval. According to an affidavit sworn by a former Minister of Nauru, the Approval had been removed from a ministerial office following a change in government, and remained in that person's home until being discovered in November 2011. However, the Committee contended that the High Court could not receive the Approval because it had not been in evidence before the Supreme Court in 2000. The Committee submitted that the use of the term "appeal" in s 5 of the Nauru Appeals Act indicates that an appeal under that section is an appeal in the strict sense and is to be decided on the basis of the evidence before the Supreme Court. The Committee also opposed Mr Clodumar's application for an extension of time to appeal to the High Court.

By majority, the High Court held that an appeal under s 5 of the Nauru Appeals Act is not limited to the hearing of an appeal in the strict sense because it engages the High Court's original jurisdiction under s 76(ii) of the Constitution. For the purpose of an appeal under s 5 of the Nauru Appeals Act, the High Court can therefore receive fresh evidence. The Court held that, in light of the circumstances, even if Mr Clodumar had exercised reasonable diligence, he could not have discovered the Approval before the proceedings commenced in 2000. Furthermore, Mr Clodumar sought to adduce evidence of some cogency, which, if accepted on a retrial in the Supreme Court, would be likely to determine the outcome of those proceedings. The High Court therefore granted the necessary extension of time, allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for retrial.

  • This statement is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the High Court or to be used in any later consideration of the Court’s reasons.
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Posted in mikiverse, Mikiverse Headline News, Mikiverse Health, Mikiverse Law, Mikiverse Politics, Mikiverse Science, mikiverse.com, MikiverseLaw | No comments
Newer Post Older Post Home

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • SEND THIS DOCUMENT TO THE JUDGE AND WATCH YOUR COURT CASE VANISH!
    http://freedomfromgovernment.us/?p=725  Taken from FREEDOM FROM GOVERNMENT webpage. Use the following freedom affidavit to let them know tha...
  • DECLARING YOURSELF AS A SECURE PARTY CREDITOR
    Published February 12, 2012 | By admin In the review of the steps necessary for filing your Redemption, the main and primary focus, for ...
  • JEAN KEATING ORLANDO FLORIDA SEMINAR
    Transcribed by Rockney Martineau 12/25/04 Jean Keating Work Shop   ______________________ INTRODUCTION By:   Michael Young               ...
  • THE UNIFORM SECURITIZATION SCHEME-THE BIRTH SCAM
    PLEASE NOTE: I do not know who authored this, but, think that it was a biological composition with the calling of Bill. I was presented with...
  • BEAT THE LAW "HOW TO GET DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY"
    ALL CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE OR FROM COL WILSON IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. ALL RIG...
  • WHEN ENGLAND BECAME A VASSAL STATE OF THE VATICAN.....THE SECRET TREATY OF VERONA 1213
    “On October 3rd 1213, King John, as ‘King of England Corporation Sole’ claimed autonomy over all the sovereign rights of England and ...
  • COSMIC BLUEPRINTS OPEN FORUM TONY Z AND KATE OF GAIA
    Listen to internet radio with Critical Mass Radio on Blog Talk Radio ETHICAL   DONATORS  AND  COMMUNITY MEMBERS  REQUIRED, TO FILL THIS SP...
  • COSMIC BLUEPRINTS OPEN FORUM. TONY Z, KATE OF GAIA AND OTHERS TALK TO TAMI PEPPERMAN
    Listen to internet radio with Critical Mass Radio on Blog Talk Radio ETHICAL   DONATORS  AND  COMMUNITY MEMBERS  REQUIRED, TO FILL THIS SP...
  • NEGOTIORUM GESTIO & NEGOTIORUM GESTOR AS DEFINED IN BLACKS LAW FIRST EDITION
    NEGOTIORUM GESTIO. Lat. In the civil law. Literally, a doing of business or businesses. A species of spontaneous agency, or an interference ...
  • LEAVING THE PFARM - OPPT DISCUSSION BY TAMI PEPPERMAN AND FRIENDS
    There are some terrible audio problems over the first 5-10 minutes then it really kicks off. The trend that I am noticing in the OPPT debate...

Categories

  • 'Australia is 100% Australian Independent Media (6)
  • 'Australia is a Crime Scene' - Robbie Thorpe (107)
  • 100% Australian Independent Media (392)
  • 100% Independent Australian Media (69)
  • 100% Independent Australian Media Australian Constitution (2)
  • A4V (2)
  • Administration and Probate Act 1958 - SECT 9 (1)
  • Australia is a Crime Scene (1)
  • Australian Federal Police Act 1979 (1)
  • Australian Independent Media (1)
  • Bill Turner (1)
  • Bills of Exchange Act 1909 (1)
  • Blacks Law (1)
  • Bono Vacantia (1)
  • Bouvier's (1)
  • Bruce Bell (1)
  • Cestui Que Vie Act 1666 (7)
  • Challenger (1)
  • COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA IS A CORPORATION. (1)
  • Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (1)
  • County Court owned by Liberty (1)
  • Daily Mail (1)
  • Dean Clifford (7)
  • Frank O’Collins (6)
  • Free Roger Hayes (2)
  • Freedom from Government (1)
  • Herald Sun (3)
  • high court (1)
  • High Court decisions (2)
  • http://mikiverselaw.blogspot.com.au/ (24)
  • Idle No More (1)
  • Information Privacy Act 2000 (1)
  • Jean Keating (2)
  • Judiciary Act 1903 S.40 (1)
  • King James II of Australia (1)
  • Larry Hannigan (1)
  • Liberty (1)
  • Mark A Robinson (1)
  • Mark McMurtrie (23)
  • Master in Equity (1)
  • Mens Rea (1)
  • Mental Health Act (1)
  • Mika of the family Rasila (4)
  • mikiverse (486)
  • Mikiverse Headline News (464)
  • Mikiverse Health (492)
  • Mikiverse Law (490)
  • Mikiverse Politics (494)
  • Mikiverse Science (488)
  • mikiverse.com (23)
  • MikiverseLaw (6)
  • Motor Car Act 1909 (1)
  • NATIONAL TRANSPORT COMMISSION (ROAD TRANSPORT LEGISLATION—AUSTRALIAN ROAD RULES) REGULATIONS 2006 (1)
  • NSW Law Reform Commission (1)
  • OPPT (8)
  • Original Soveregn Tribal Federation (5)
  • Originie Australian (2)
  • OSTF (9)
  • Pacific Islanders Protection Act 1872 (1)
  • Police Brutality (1)
  • PUBLIC NOTICE (1)
  • Real Justice (1)
  • RealJustice (1)
  • Robert Arthur Menard (4)
  • Robert Menard (4)
  • Rod Class (3)
  • Roger Hayes (1)
  • RT (1)
  • Rumble-v-Liverpool Plains Shire Council No. 2011/58125 (1)
  • S 16 Motor Car Act 1909 (1)
  • S.76 Sentencing Act 1991 (1)
  • Santos Bonacci (1)
  • Stefan Molyneux (1)
  • Tami Pepperman (3)
  • The Judiciary Act 1903 (1)
  • The Mikiverse (3)
  • UCC Financing Statement (1)
  • Vimeo (1)
  • Wayne Glew (1)
  • Winston Shrout (1)
  • You Tube (24)
  • Your CAR is NOT a MOTOR VEHICLE (3)

Blog Archive

  • ►  2013 (304)
    • ►  September (15)
    • ►  August (59)
    • ►  July (30)
    • ►  June (28)
    • ►  May (18)
    • ►  April (25)
    • ►  March (31)
    • ►  February (66)
    • ►  January (32)
  • ▼  2012 (196)
    • ►  December (48)
    • ►  November (25)
    • ►  October (15)
    • ►  September (11)
    • ►  August (13)
    • ►  July (12)
    • ▼  June (37)
      • NIGHT SPEEDERS SEE RED AS 6300 BOOKED BY NEW CAMERAS
      • FRANK O'COLLINS-WESTERN ROMAN LAW
      • FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ACT
      • THE NATURE OF THE RIGHTS OF THE "CESTUI QUE TRUST"...
      • ALIEN REGISTRATION ACT OF 1940
      • MINNESOTTA RULE DOCUMENTS RELATING TO CESTUI QUE V...
      • CESTUI QUE VIE ACT 1666
      • ROD CLASS CESTUI QUE VIE TRUST FACT CHECK BIRTH CE...
      • EVIDENCE OF BRIAN TO COURT
      • AFL A LAW UNTO ITSELF, SAYS DEFENCE LAWYER
      • ANONYMOUS JUDGE BLOWS THE WHISTLE: AMERICA IS NOTH...
      • TAMI PEPPERMAN ON MY PRIVATE AUDIO 6-21-2012
      • THE CESTUI QUE VIE ACT - TAMI PEPPERMAN
      • TOOLS THAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN USE TO DENY YOU A ‘F...
      • KINZA CLODUMAR v NAURU LANDS COMMITTEE & ORS
      • HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA PRACTICE DIRECTION NO 2 OF...
      • HIGH COURT UPHOLDS CHAPLAINCY CHALLENGE
      • LIFE OF SILENCE FOR LOOSE-LIPPED 85 YEAR OLD WW2 V...
      • SIR–MIKA SOVEREIGN UNLAWFULLY HELD CAPTIVE IN OTTA...
      • ACN #’S FOR THE QUEEN’S STATE BASED CARTEL OPERATIONS
      • COURT RULES INTERNET IP ADDRESSES ARE NOT PEOPLE
      • POLICE WARN GO-SLOW MOTORISTS TO STICK TO THE LEFT...
      • LISTENING DEVICES ACT 2009 A.C.T
      • INTERESTING LETTER BY EX-VICTORIA POLICE MEMBER
      • AWESOME DOCUMENT:DENIQUE ULTIMATUM REVEREOR VERUM
      • FREEMAN MIKA,TALES OF TRAVELING WITHOUT PAPERS AND...
      • UNLICENSED DRIVER NEARLY RUNS DOWN POLICE OFFICER
      • COMPETITION AND CONSUMER ACT 2010 - SECT 2A
      • SEND THIS DOCUMENT TO THE JUDGE AND WATCH YOUR COU...
      • ACCEPTED FOR VALUE,SETOFF ALL YOUR PUBLIC DEBT,WIT...
      • CHICAGO COPS TASER 8-MONTH PREGNANT WOMAN FOR PARK...
      • PHONE CALL TO IRS: HOW TO PAY BILLS WITH JUST MY S...
      • LICENCING EVERYTHING IS TAKING AWAY YOUR FREEDOM
      • JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 40
      • COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA IS A CORPORATION.
      • WHAT IF THE GOVERNMENT REJECTS THE CONSTITUTION?
      • IT'S THE CONSTITUTION, NO BULLION
    • ►  May (10)
    • ►  April (5)
    • ►  March (6)
    • ►  February (13)
    • ►  January (1)
Powered by Blogger.