Reuben (Tuari) v Isaac

[2020] NZHC 382

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CIV-2020-419-000048

[2020] NZHC 382

BETWEEN

STEWART REUBEN (TUARI)

Applicant

AND

CHIEF JUDGE ISSAC

Respondent

Hearing:	(On the papers)
Judgment:	4 March 2020

JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

This judgment was delivered by me on 4 March 2020 at 1.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Copy to:            Applicant

Registrar, Maori Land Court

REUBEN (TUARI) v ISSAC [2020] NZHC 382 [4 March 2020]

[1]        Stewart Reuben (Tuari) has purported to file a number of documents with the High Court at Hamilton. The Registrar has referred the documents to me in accordance with High Court Rule 5.35A.

[2]The documents are:

(a)Interlocutory application with notice (Exempt Interlocutory);

(b)Affidavit of S Reuben (Tuari) (Exempt Interlocutory);

(c)Memorandum in support of interlocutory application without notice.

[3]The interlocutory application purports to seek:

(a)By Order of the Court a writ of “Certiorari” regarding A20190006784, and to an immediate inquiry that is “essentially factual” of being more fully informed by delivering the complete record thereof.

(b)By Order of the Court a Writ of “Mandamus Prohibition” to oversee executive action by implementation of preventative mechanisms necessarily responsible for the maintenance of the application made on behalf of others by S. Reuben (Tuari) of Ngati Tai Hapu [Inc.] and ORS, and to refuse countenance behaviour that threatens either basic human rights or the rule of law.

(c)An Order of the Court declaring an interim stay until final determination of a “marae kooti”, or court held in accordance with “tikanga” protocols, which is to be the appropriate avenue to discuss any question of fact relatable to “tikanga” that shall assist the ongoing protection of “rangatiratanga” rightful to the applicant & ORS in the proceeding and to send the case to such a forum to decide any question of “tikanga” thereof.

[4]        The documents attached to the affidavit are a request for a fee waiver (which appears to be a duplicate of the fee waiver lodged with the Maori Land Court), a general form of application and a notice of appeal both on forms used in that Court.

[5]        I apprehend that the applicant wishes to pursue a judicial review of a decision(s) made by the Maori Land Court.

[6]The relief sought is not relief this Court could grant.

[7]        The appropriate venue for a challenge to a decision of the Maori Land Court is an appeal to the Maori Appellate Court or to the Court of Appeal in accordance with the provisions of the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993.

[8]        The documents, particularly the memorandum in support, are discursive, illogical, argumentative and are based on lack of understanding of the laws of New Zealand. The relief sought by way of judicial review is not open to the applicant.

[9]The documents in their current form are an abuse of process.

[10]The purported proceedings are struck out under HCR 5.35B.

[11]      The applicant has a right to appeal this particular decision.1 A copy of this decision is to be sent to the Registrar of the Maori Land Court.2

Venning J

1      HCR 5.35B(3).

2      HCR 5.35B(4).