Teitoi v Teema [2004] KIHC 19; Civil Appeal 19 of 2002 (29 January 2004)

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

Civil Appeal 19 of 2002

Between:

TEETE TEITOI
Appellant

And:

IOANNA TEEMA
Respondent

For the Appellant: Ms Taoing Taoaba
No appearance of Respondent

Date of Hearing: 29 January 2004

JUDGMENT
(Ex Tempore)

The respondent sued the appellant in the Magistrate's Court for defamation. Neither party had a lawyer. When it came to the turn of the appellant to call her witnesses the Single Magistrate refused to hear their evidence because, he said, they had been in court and had heard the plaintiff's witnesses. This was a mistake by the Single Magistrate. Unless the Single Magistrate (or judge in the High Court) has made an order that witnesses should leave the court room, a witness may stay in the court room before giving evidence and his or her evidence should be received and considered by the magistrate in the usual way. It is common in some places for a lawyer at the beginning of a hearing to ask for an order that witnesses leave the court and the presiding judicial officer may make such an order. To the contrary, in other places such as some of the United States the rule is that witnesses must be in court. Orders that witnesses leave the court are rare in Kiribati and witnesses are often in court listening before giving their evidence. That is not a problem.

The Single Magistrate's refusal to hear the evidence of the appellant's witnesses requires that his decision and order be quashed. The case will be remitted to be heard again in accordance with these reasons.

Appeal allowed: order of the Single Magistrate quashed and case returned to the Magistrate's Court for hearing by another Single Magistrate.

THE HON ROBIN MILLHOUSE QC
Chief Justice