Mautaake v Roman [1996] KIHC 52; HCLA 126.91 (24 July 1996)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI
HELD AT MARAKEI
(BEFORE THE HON R LUSSICK C.J.)

HCLA 126/91

BETWEEN:

MIRIANA MAUTAAKE
Appellant

AND:

TEANG ROMAN
Respondent

No appearance of Appellant
Mr D Lambourne for the Respondent

JUDGMENT

The appellant named on the record, Miriana Mautaake, is actually the respondent. He has been served with a notice of hearing but makes no appearance, nor has any communication been received from him.

Mr Lambourne appears for the true appellant, N. Teang Roman, and applies to argue the appeal in the absence of the respondent. We grant that application.

Mr Lambourne submits that the proceedings in the lower court were unsatisfactory because the magistrates' panel which decided the case was not the same one which commenced the hearing.

Although that is not evident from the record, we have been referred to the minutes. There is no doubt that on the third day of the hearing, which was the day on which the decision was delivered, magistrate Kaburoro had been replaced by magistrate Katannako. The latter had not heard any of the evidence given over the previous two days. What the land magistrates' court should have done was to commence the hearing from the start again. We find that it was in error in simply continuing on from where the previous panel had left off. The proceedings were thus unsatisfactory and the appellant was entitled to the view that she might not have been given a fair hearing.

The appeal will therefore be allowed. The decision of the land magistrates' court is set aside and the case is remitted for rehearing.

THE HON R B LUSSICK
Chief Justice
(24/07/96)

TEKAIE TENANORA
Magistrate
(24/07/96)

BETERO KAITANGARE
Magistrate
(24/07/96)