Setevano v Attorney-General [1995] FijiLawRp 21; [1995] 41 FLR 135 (21 June 1995)

[1995] 41 FLR 135

HIGH COURT OF FIJI

Civil Jurisdiction

LITIWAI SETEVANO

v

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Fatiaki J

21 June 1994

Torts - malicious prosecution - false imprisonment - liability of the State for torts committed by a servant or agent - judicial immunity.

After a successful appeal against his conviction after trial in the High Court the plaintiff commenced proceedings seeking damages arising out of his conviction. On application to strike out the action: HELD: The trial judge acted within his jurisdiction and was therefore immune from civil proceedings.

Cases cited:

Crispin v Registrar of the District Court [1986] 2 NZLR 254
Lucas & Son (Nelson Mail) v O'Brien [1978] 2 NZLR 289
Maharaj v Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago (No. 2) [1979] AC 385
Nakhla v McCarthy (1978) NZLR 291
Sirros v Moore [1975] QB 118

Ruling on application to strike out.

R. Chand for Plaintiff
I. Mataitoga Solicitor-General for Defendant

Fatiaki J: [21 June]

On the 2nd of March 1995 the plaintiff issued a Writ against the Attorney-General claiming damages for malicious prosecution and false imprisonment arising out of a successful appeal to the Fiji Court of Appeal against his conviction for an offence of Manslaughter after a High Court trial.

The Statement of Claim in its relevant parts reads:

"3. THE Plaintiff was on or about the 12th day of February 1988 charged and pleaded not guilty of murdering one Jeet Kuar (d/o Niranjan Singh).

4. THAT thereafter he was tried before a Judge of this Honourable Court with the assistance of three assessors in a trial starting from the 18th October, 1989 to the 1st of November, 1989.

7. THE aforesaid assessors returned the unanimous opinion that the Plaintiff was not guilty.

8. THE learned Trial Judge then adjourned the trial until the 2nd of November, 1989 and on resumption delivered a judgment in which he over ruled the assessors' verdict and convicted the Plaintiff of Manslaughter.

10. THAT thereafter the Plaintiff through his Counsel appealed against the decision of the Learned Trial Judge in the Fiji Court of Appeal.

13. THAT the Learned Judges of the High Court (sic) upheld the Plaintiff's appeal and the conviction was quashed and the Plaintiff was acquitted.

14. THAT the Plaintiff after his conviction at the High Court on the 2nd day of November, 1989 until his release pursuant to the judgment of the Fiji Court of Appeal pronounced on the 27th day of May, 1991