Statement from the Committee of Management
Māori Land Court decision – Clarification for shareholders
Tēnā koutou e ngā kaipupuri pānga, e te whānau o Mangatawa,
Following the release of the Māori Land Court’s decision on 6 November 2026, the Committee of Management wishes to clarify some online statements by others about the findings of the Māori Land Court in application to remove former Chair Neil Te Kani from the Committee. Given the seriousness of the matters before the Court, the Committee considers that it is important for shareholders to understand the full context of the decision, rather than relying on high-level summaries published online.
Shareholders deserve an accurate account of what the Court determined. The Committee therefore encourages shareholders to read the entire decision of the Māori Land Court which can be accessed here: Carroll-v-Mangatawa-Papamoa-2026-309-Waikato-Maniapoto-MB-158-309-WMN-158-v2.pdf. This pānui includes reference to the relevant paragraphs of the decision for ease of reference for shareholders.
While Judge Thomas declined to remove Mr Te Kani, it did find that he failed to carry out his duties as a Committee member satisfactorily and acted in a manner that is incompatible with membership of the Committee in relation to:
- the alienation of Incorporation land by lease and without shareholder support or the permission of the Māori Land Court (paragraph 63);
- his unilateral approval of payments for staff bonuses, travel disbursements, sponsorship disbursements and reimbursements for his own personal expenses (paragraph 66); or
- managing his own conflicts of interest (paragraph 72).
Judge Thomas found that Mr Te Kani meets the grounds for removal in section 269(4)(a), (b) and (c) of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 (TTWMA) (paragraph 73), that:
(a) the member has failed to carry out his or her duties satisfactorily;
(b) the member has contravened any of the provisions of this Part or of the constitution of the incorporation, or has otherwise acted in a manner that is incompatible with membership of the committee; and
(c) it is otherwise in the best interests of the incorporation that the member be removed from office
This pānui elaborates on those matters below with reference to specific paragraphs of the decision. The Committee again emphasises the importance of reading the entire decision of the Māori Land Court to understand the context of the decisions of her Honour Judge Thomas.
Judge Thomas made three substantive adverse findings about Mr Te Kani’s conduct as a member of the Committee:
1. Alienation of Incorporation land
Mr Te Kani approved a lease of Asher Block D in exchange for the use of Villa 189 (Villa 189 lease) without the knowledge or consent of the rest of the Committee.
The Court found that the Villa 189 lease was an alienation of Incorporation land (which is Māori Freehold Land). TTWMA is clear that a lease requires a resolution of shareholders to support the lease and the approval of the Māori Land Court (paragraph 62). Mr Te Kani had neither.
Judge Thomas found that sections 269(4)(a) and (b) were met, that (paragraph 63):
(a) Mr Te Kani failed to carry out his duties satisfactorily; and
(b) Mr Te Kani contravened TTWMA in a manner incompatible with membership of the Committee.
2. Unauthorised expenditure
The Court found that Mr Te Kani authorised several payments himself, without the knowledge or approval of the Committee, including (at paragraph 64): bonus payments, staff Christmas payments, travel disbursements, sponsorship payments, and reimbursement of his personal expenses.
Judge Thomas (at paragraph 66) stated:
“Mr Te Kani clearly did not have the authority to unilaterally approve these payments and was therefore in breach of the Incorporation’s policies”
Judge Thomas found that Mr Te Kani failed to carry out his duty satisfactorily and acted in a manner that is incompatible with Committee membership.
3. Conflicts of interest
Judge Thomas found that Mr Te Kani breached Incorporation policy when he failed to declare conflicts of interest and did not remove himself from decision making that directly related to the business of the Incorporation. Mr Te Kani (paragraphs 69-71):
- Organised the purchase of shares in Seeka Ltd by the Incorporation, Ranginui 12 Trust, and Tukairangi Investments Ltd while he was employed by Seeka Ltd, a member of the Committee, a trustee of the Ranginui 12 Trust and a director on Tukairangi Investments Ltd.
- Had a personal business relationship with the then CEO of the Incorporation.
The Judge found that Mr Te Kani was in breach of the Incorporation’s Managing Conflicts of Interest policies and that he failed to discharge his duties satisfactorily and acted in a manner incompatible with Committee membership.
Why was the application dismissed?
Although the Judge found statutory grounds for removal had been established, she ultimately declined to exercise her discretion to remove Mr Te Kani.
The Committee acknowledges the decision. However, the dismissal of the removal application does not negate the adverse findings made concerning Mr Te Kani’s conduct.
Our responsibility to shareholders
The decision to support these proceedings was not taken lightly. It arose from the Committee’s responsibility to protect Mangatawa and uphold the standards of conduct expected of those entrusted by shareholders with its governance. These proceedings were never simply about the removal of an individual. They were about accountability, the proper exercise of authority and the protection of an Incorporation that belongs to generations of our people, past and future.
Shareholders deserve to know what the Court found, not simply the outcome of the application.
Service to Mangatawa is a privilege, not an entitlement. Those entrusted with governing our whenua and assets must be held to the highest standards of accountability.
Nā te Komiti Whakahaere
Mangatawa Pāpāmoa Blocks Incorporation
11 Te Rama o te Tihi Place
admin@mangatawa.com | +64 7 574 8365
