Manu Kapua v Para Haimona
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 1913 |
| Year | 1913 |
| Date | 1913 |
| Court | Privy Council |
By the New Zealand Settlement Act, 1863, s. 3, the Governor in Council was empowered to “set apart” within any district, declared under s. 2 to be a district within that Act, “eligible sites for settlements for colonization.” Sect. 4 provided: “for the purposes of such settlements the Governor in Council may from time to time reserve or take any land within such district and such land shall be deemed to be Crown land, freed and discharged from all title, interest or claim of any person whomsoever.” By an Order in Council dated September 2, 1865, made under the above Act, it was declared that certain lands should be a district within the above Act and that the said lands were required for the purposes of the Act and were subject to the provisions thereof; and it ordered that such lands should be “set apart and reserved as sites for settlements for colonization agreeably to the provisions of the Act.” The Order further declared, “no land of any loyal inhabitant within the district, whether held by native custom or Crown grant, will be taken, except so much as may be absolutely necessary for the security of the country, compensation being given for all lands so taken”:—
Held, that the above Order in Council did not extinguish the native or other title of any loyal inhabitant of the district.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Native Appellate Court of New Zealand (February 27, 1907) and a partition order (April 17, 1907) made thereon.
The appeal was as to the title to 11, 236 acres of land in New Zealand known as the Te Akau block, and involved the determination of the effect in law of an Order in Council dated September 2, 1865, made under the
H. S. Preston and Wynyard, for the appellants. The finding of the Native Appellate Court that the ancient tribal rights to the land in dispute were not extinguished by the Order in Council of September 2, 1865, was erroneous, and as this finding is the basis of the judgment appealed from, the whole partition proceeded on a wrong principle. The case is not properly distinguishable from Te Teira Te Paea v. Te Roera Tareha.F1 It is not material that the Order in Council in the present case did not declare that the whole land should be “taken,” since it declared that the lands should be “reserved as sites for settlements for colonization.” The declaration that no land of any loyal inhabitant would be “taken” does not prevent the whole of the land referred to in the Order being deemed to be Crown land freed from all other title as provided by s. 4 of the Act. The effect is the same as if the word “retained” had been used as it was in the above cited decision.
Salmond, K.C. (S.-G. for New Zealand), and Northcote, for the respondents, were not called upon.
The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by
VISCOUNT HALDANE L.C. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Native Appellate Court of New Zealand and from a partition order which followed on the judgment, by which order directions were given for the partition of a block of land, known as Te Akau, between two tribes of natives by whom the land was held in common ownership. The two tribes are known as the Tainuis and the Tahingas, and the appeal is brought by or on behalf of the former against the latter. The Attorney-General of New Zealand has been made a respondent because, since the date of the judgment, which was given in 1907, the land awarded to the Tahingas has been purchased from them by the Crown. The area in dispute is one of some 11,236 acres. The facts have been agreed and stated in a special case settled between the parties for the purpose of this appeal, and it has been further agreed that the appeal is to be confined to questions of law only.
The history of the case is as follows. In 1863 the natives of New Zealand were in armed rebellion. Among other steps taken to bring the rebellion to an end the
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Te Ara Rangatū O Te Iwi O Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua Incorporated v The Attorney-General
...[227] The Privy Council disagreed. Viscount Haldane LC, delivering the unanimous judgment, stated:111 109 110 111 Kapua v Haimona [1913] AC 761 At 762. At 764–765. But in [Te Paea] the wording of the particular Order in Council differed materially from the wording in the present case. Here,......
-
Park Traders (Jamaica) Ltd v Bevad Ltd and Transocean Shipping Ltd
... ... 27 In Casey v Wharawhara Haimona [1922] NZLR 455 the Supreme Court of New Zealand had to consider whether delay in instituting a ... ...
- Ngati Apa Ki Te Waipounamu Trust v 1) Attorney General 2) Maori Appellate Court 3) Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu