Buretee v Pedro [2002] KIHC 19; Civil Appeal 18 of 1997 (20 November 2002)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI
CIVIL JURISDICTION
HELD AT KURIA
REPUBLIC OF KIRIBATI

High Court Civil Appeal 18 of 1997

Between:

MAAN BURETEE
Appellant

And:

MANGKIA PEDRO
TEUNAIA KOBUTI
TEBORA TEUNAIA
Respondents

For the Appellant: Ms Emma Hibling
For the Respondents: Ms Taoing Taoaba

Date of Hearing: 20 November 2002

JUDGMENT
(Ex Tempore)

This is an appeal in a defamation case. The appellant complained that the defendants had spread untrue stories about her having an affair with another man while her husband was in gaol. The story damaged her relations with her husband. The magistrates found:

(1) Words which had been spoken were defamatory words
(2) That these words spoil the reputation of a married woman
(3) It was said by the defendant

The magistrates did not go on to make any award of damages because, they said, the plaintiff now appellant, had not justified her claim for $2,800.

They also referred only to "the defendant" in the singular without specifying which defendant they meant.

The magistrates made two mistakes. First they should have said which of the defendants they found had said the defamatory things: it may be only one, or two or all three said them. If one then only that person is liable, if two then those two are liable, if all three then all three are liable.

That is liable to pay damages.

The second mistake is in assuming that they should award either $2,800 or nothing. In fact they had a discretion to award any amount they thought proper up to $2,800. I have been reminded of a judgment I gave earlier this year at Nonouti, HCCA 31/1994 in which I agreed that damages of $300 was a proper amount in similar circumstances. I shall leave a copy of the judgment for the magistrates to read.

The appeal is allowed to the extent of returning the case to the magistrates to say how many of the three defendants they find said defamatory things about the appellant and who they were and secondly to say how much the damages should be. I explain that the appellant can only collect from the defendants found liable the total of the amount fixed by the magistrates: she cannot collect it from each defendant found liable.

THE HON ROBIN MILLHOUSE QC
CHIEF JUSTICE