Boyama v Duadak [2004] PGDC 60; DC385 (5 November 2004)

DC385

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE FAMILY COURT OF JUSTICE]

FC NO. 53 OF 2004

BETWEEN:

RAYMOND BOYAMA
Complainant

And:

JOHN DUADAK
First Defendant

And:

ANNA BOYAMO
Second Defendant

PORT MORESBY: S. OLI
2004: 29th October; 5th November

Civil Law - Adultery charge against the Defendants under S. 4 (1)(b) of the Adultery and Enticement Act 1989

Practice and Procedure - Complainant rely on voluntary admission and confession by his spouse. Both Defendants denied the charge. Complainant spouse claim that voluntary admission and confession was made under extreme physical violent and threat executed on her by Complainant.

Held:
Evidence on voluntary admission and confession relied on by Complainant rejected. The Court held that it was made under extreme physical violence and threat executed by Complainant. The Court further held that admission by Complainant spouse only prove the fact that such statement was indeed made, but failed to prove the truth of the matter complained of by the Complainant. No independent evidence to prove and confirm the act of adultery complained of The Complainant's case rest on hearsay and involuntary admission evidence. The Court dismiss the case and discharge the Defendants each and severally.

Cases Cited:
Nil.

Legislations cited:
Adultery and Enticement Act 1989
Evidence Act

DECISION

OLI - DCM: The Complainant took action against the Defendants each and severally through the issuance of Summons to a Person Upon Complaint, who alleges that on 16th December 2003 at Bomana Police Training College, both being married with children, and the First Defendant being the Complainant's immediate supervisor did abuse his authority, to engage in voluntary sexual intercourse together with 2nd Defendant in his office (Executive Officer - Training), knowing very well that the said Anna Boyamo (2nd Defendant) is the legal wife of the Complainant. Thereby contravening Section 4 (l)(b) of the Adultery and Enticement Act 1989.

The Complainant therefore being aggrieved, brings this action against both Defendants each and severally and prays the Honorable Court for compensation of K 1,000.00 pursuant to Section 11 of the said Act, plus costs. The Complainant further seeks Court Orders to restrain both Defendants from any further association. The Defendants each and severally upon being arraigned in respect to the charge, deny the truth of the complaint.

The First Defendant from the outset denies any knowledge about the allege act of adultery, but do admit that he did allow access to 2nd Defendant to use the telephone in his office on 7th December 2003 between the hours of 12.00 to 1.00 pm but only for three minutes.

The 2nd Defendant also denies the allege act of adultery with 1st Defendant but did confirm having access to use of telephone in 1st Defendant's office on 17th December 2003 for only three (3) minutes because his brother, whom she phoned in Popondetta, was not available. The 2nd Defendant went in her defence to explain her admission to confession was not voluntary but was forced through .use of violence by Complainant during the interrogation that he personally conducted at their house with 2nd Defendant (his wife) on 6th February 2004. This interrogation was done without the presence of a corroborator or a third party.

The general denial in principle by both Defendants and 2nd Defendant raised the legal defence under S. 28 - Evidence Act that admission was not voluntary, but obtained through threat and inducement by Complainant during the interrogation conducted on 6th February 2004, Thus, rendered the burden of proof to the Defendant to show cause to the contrary, though the legal evidential burden of proof still rest with the Complainant to prove his case on the balance of probability in a civil proceeding.

1. ISSUES

The two pertinent legal issues raised are:

1.1 Whether the confession or admission by 2nd Defendant on 6th February 2004, was voluntary in respect to the alleged act of adultery; and or

1.2 Whether there is any relevant material evidence independent of allege voluntary confession by 2nd Defendant in order for Complainant to establish the act of adultery as alleged to have been committed on the 16th of December 2003 by Defendants each and severally.

Whether the confession or admission by 2nd Defendant on 6th February 2004 was voluntary in respect to the alleged act of adultery; the relevant Legislation that deals with confession by Defendant in criminal proceedings is Section 28 of Evidence Act. It reads:

28 Confessions Induced by Threats

"A confession that is tendered in evidence in any criminal proceedings shall be received if it has been induced by threat or promise by a person in authority, and a confession made Lifter any such threat or promise shall be deemed to have been by it unless contrary is shown"

THE COMPLAINANT'S CASE

The matter went on trial after parties failed to successfully mediate a amicable settlement out of Court. The Complainant went into the witness box and gave evidence on oath. The Complainant relied on his affidavit of 23rd February 2004 and relied on the evidence contained therein. The affidavit was formerly admitted as evidence and marked Exhibit "A" with number of annexures marked "A" to "E" attached to it.

The annexures were marked for identification only (MF I) subject to the authors being called as witness to attest to the authenticity and correctness of the matters contained therein.

Those annexures marked for identification were:

Annexure A: MFI (1): Church Marriage Certificate for Raymond Boyamo and Anna Semopa dated 26 March 1989.

Annexure B: MFI (2): Statement by Ms Michelle Boyamo dated 15/02/04.

Annexure C: MFI (3): Statement by Ms Regina Boyamo dated 15/02/04.

Annexure D: MFI (4): Statement by Policeman Edward Gigi dated 16/02/04.

Annexure E: MFI (5): Statement by Policeman Diya John dated 16/02/04.

The above annexures were never admitted as part and partial of the Complainant's evidence because Complainant could not call the Deponents in respect to those statements to Court and attest to their respective statements made as true and correct, in every particular, to support the Complainant's case.

The undisputed fact is contained in MFI (1) in respect to Marriage Certificate. This indeed satisfied the element on marital relationship between Complainant and 2nd Defendant. The Court takes judicial notice of the Church Marriage Certificate issued on 26th March 1989 by St Samuel Congregation Church in Popondetta.

Whilst the rest of the statements by family friends confirm the event of the alleged act, but they cannot be relied upon to prove the truth of the matters and issues complained of, unless deponents attest to their respective statements and were properly tested in Court during cross-examination and re-examination by parties.

The rest of the annexures marked from B. MFI (2), C. MFI (3), D. MFI (4) and E.

MFJ (5), in my view, only provide circumstantial evidence of 1st Defendant having being seen or talking or driving around near the 2nd Defendant's residential area prior to the date and event in question. Whilst these statements may have persuasive value, they don't, in my view, have any direct substantive bearing on the alleged act in question that is the act of adultery being committed by the Defendants on the 16th December 2003. I therefore reject them in their entirety.

The only credible evidence that support the Complainant's allegation is that contained in his affidavit at paragraphs commencing from 10 to 15 inclusive. This is in relation to personal interrogation initiated by Complainant upon him being told by 1st Defendant's wife, Grace, by phone on the morning of 06th February 2004, that 2nd Defendant admitted to her in the morning that her husband, 1st Defendant, was having an affair with 2nd Defendant (Complainant's wife) during her absence while she was away in the village during the Christmas and New Year period.

This information and revelation by 1st Defendant's wife, Grace, to Complainant prompted him to make haste to Bomana Police College to confirm or otherwise with his wife Anna the truth of the matters that she told her that morning.

The Complainant after his arrival at his house found his wife Anna, 2nd Defendant was not around and so he sent for her through one of his children. The 2nd Defendant arrived after 20 minutes and this is how the event unfolded thereafter from para 10 to 15. I prefer to restate them as referred to by Complainant as per his affidavit. The Complainant states as follows:

"Para 10: When she came in the house I asked her, "tell me, did Grace Duadak approached you sometimes this morning and talked to you about some problems?" She said it was false story that Grace told you. 1 further asked my wife if she had been having an affair with Senior Inspector John Duadak. She told me that, "she never had any affair with Mr. Duadak".

Para 11: I further insisted and told her that Grace had just telephoned me and told me that you had admitted to Grace this morning of all the information and now you are denying it to me. I then took the Bible out and told her: "in the eyes of Almighty GOD you hold on to this Holy Bible and tell me nothing but the TRUTH" She paused for a while and I became so angry and further yelled at her to hold the Holy Bible on her right hand and tell me the truth. I told her that if you don't come forward and hold the Holy Bible after my three calls will mean to me that you are lying and had been going around with Senior Inspector John Duadak. She paused for about five minutes and I got so angry and shouted at her to tell the truth. She then told me to lower my voice and calm down so that she will tell me the whole story. She did not hold the Bible and told me the whole story.

Para 12: She then sat on the chair and started to tell me by admitting what happened. She told me that, "On Tuesday the I (16th of December 2003 myself, Mr. Duadak and Mrs. Cathy Ambane went to Bomana Primary School. We went to see a teacher by the name of Mr. Siworo who was a Upper Primary Co-ordinator to find out about our children's grade nine placing in High Schools in NCD. After we finished from the school, Mr. Duadak walked back to the College to his office. Mrs. Ambane and 1 came behind him. I left Mrs. Ambane in front of the Admin Office and she went to her house and I went into the Admin Office to use the telephone. When I went in the Admin Office, Mr. Duadak came out and 1 asked him if 1 can use one of the telephones outside, he said, no you come into my office and use my phone. I obeyed him and went in to use his phone in his office

.

When I went into his office, Mr. Duadak closed the door behind me and he locked the door." J further asked my wife was Mr. Duadak . in uniform or civilian clothes at that time? She told me that, "Mr. Duadak was in full uniform".

Para 13: I then further asked her after Mr. Duadak locked the door what happened next? She took time and paused for a while and said "we had sex in the office." I further asked her to tell me how did Mr. Duadak acted upon you and the act of sexual intercourse took place, you must tell me the truth from the start. She said, "Mr. Duadak came and sat near me and touched my breast and kissed me on my lips which he stimulated me. He told me that him and Grace have some problems. Grace never allowed him to have sex with her. They sleep apart and not in one bedroom. "After she told me that, I got so angry and ordered to go ahead and tell me what happened next. She then said, "he stimulated me so much that I cannot control myself so I did not remove my clothes, but I lay on the floor and open my legs, moved my pants on the side. Mr. Duadak took out a condom, fit it on to his penis which was already erected and he pushed it into my vagina. We grab hold of each other and completed the act in short time in case someone might come into the office. I was so frightened and left Mr. Duadak in the office and went to the house. "

I then further asked my wife that had Mr. Duadak released any sperm. She told me that 'yes, I could feel the condom filled with his sperm. I also saw it when he took it out." I further asked her, how long did this entire event take place? She said, "it took about 10 minutes because I was too scared, so I left quickly and went down to the house ".

Para 14: After she told me the whole story, I, as the husband, got very upset and angry at the same time. I just ordered her to pack her clothes, leave all my children and go somewhere else and stay.

Para 15: I further asked her if there was any sexual intercourse took place before or after 16th December 2003 or any other time recently? She said, "none only once on the 16th December 2003." I further asked her that I had been out on Christmas/New Year operations in Aroma, Central Province and Mr. Duadak was in the college, had he had sex with you during my long absence?

She said, "I am honestly telling you that it was only once on the 16th of December 2003 in his office ", referred to Executive Officer -Training's office."

The self-confession and or voluntary admission by the 2nd Defendant in respect to the alleged act of adultery on 16th December 2003, is quite self-incriminating and damaging. They are repeated by Complainant in his affidavit after some 17 days later thus raises a significant credible issue on the hearsay rule.

Whether what Complainant is restating of what 2nd Defendant said to him on 6th February 2004, does it, in any way, breach the general rules on hearsay exception rule. This issue will be addressed in my analysis of the total evidence later.

The Complainant, during cross-examination by 2nd Defendant's counsel, maintained that 2nd Defendant's admission was made voluntarily without any threat or undue inducement or physical intimidation exhibited or held out to her by the Complainant.

The Complainant then called no further witness and closed his case. The Defendants elected to make no case to answer submission. The Court, having considered the written no case to answer submission, felt obliged to allow the defence to be heard and rejected the no case to answer submission by Defendants each and severally based on evidence contained, in particular, in para 12 and 13 of the Complainant's affidavit respectively. The Court ruled that Defendants each and severally had a case to answer.

DEFENDANT'S CASE

Before the commencement of the defence case, the Complainant submitted that he would like to call 1st Defendant's wife, Grace, who should be called to give evidence. The Defendants vigorously objected to the submission that it was improper for the Complainant to ask to re-open his case after court has ruled that Defendants each and severally has a case to answer.

The Court allowed the Defendants' objection on the grounds that it was improper procedurally to re-open Complainant's case again when Court has already ruled that Defendants each and severally had a case to answer.

The First Defendant took the witness box and on oath and referred to his affidavit of 12th March 2004. The affidavit was admitted marked as "Exhibit "B". The 1st Defendant categorically from the outset denied any knowledge of the act of adultery as alleged and he was in his house on 16/12/03 but do admitted that he did allow 2nd Defendant to use the phone in his office on 17th December 2003 between 12.00 noon and 1.00 pm. The phone call lasted only three (3) minutes and she left the office. The Complainant in his further cross-examination asked, amongst other questions, the issues pertains to Senior Police Officers genuineness in relation to questions that pertain to transparency and accountability in the following:

Q: Do you know of the telephone STD line in the Examination Unit Office?

A: Yes, I do. There is a telephone in Examination Unit Office.

Q: If you say yes, why didn't you refer the 2nd Defendant to see me in the Examination Unit Office and use the STD telephone between 12.00 noon and 1.00 pm on 16th December 2003?

A: Yes, as I've said earlier, I have never contacted 2nd Defendant on the date 16/12/03 and times referred to.

Q: If you were so transparent as one of the Senior Officer of the Constabulary, why not get the telephone number, dial the line and get it transferred to one of the extensions in the administration office.

A: Your Worship, if it was on 16th December 2003, I deny that because I never contacted the 2nd Defendant on 16th December 2003.

This line of questions clearly demonstrate and put 1st Defendant on the spotlight that it takes two to tangle in the act of adultery. However, the answers given by 1st Defendant clearly demonstrates the fact that 1st Defendant is not only firm but very forthright in his responses, and thus only raises a lot to be desired of, in view of the 2nd Defendant's denial of voluntary admission of the alleged act in question.

This has to be weighed against other credible evidence independent nom the admission on the alleged date in question, in the way the Complainant has pleaded his facts to have occurred on the alleged said date of the act of adultery allegedly to have taken place on 16th December 2003.

The 2nd Defendant Anna Boyamo, went into the witness box on oath and referred to her affidavit of 7th April 2004. The 2nd Defendant spoke to her affidavit and was admitted marked Exhibit "C".

The 2nd Defendant, during the examination in-chief from the outset, denied the alleged act of adultery on 16th December 2003 with 1st Defendant in his office when she was allowed to use the phone during the lunch period between 12.00 noon to 1.00 pm.
The 2nd Defendant, however, during the examination in-chief by her Counsel asked the following questions and the answers given in respect to the interrogating session instigated and conducted by the Complainant on 06/02/04 and made specific reference to them were as follows:

Counsel sought leave for her client to refer to her affidavit of 7th April 2004. Leave granted and Counsel proceeded on her examination in-chief

Q: Is it true that your name is Anna Boyamo?

A: Yes.

Q: It is true that your husband is Complainant - Raymond Boyamo?

A: Yes.

Q: How many children do both of you have?

A: Your Worship, we have five (5) children.

Q: You know why you are in Court today?

A: Yes, all my stories are in the affidavit of 16th April 2004.

Q: On 6th February 2004, Complainant asked you some questions

A: Yes.

Q: Can you tell the Court, how did he ask you about the case?

A: Yes, Your Worship, on 6th February 2004, Complainant came to me very frustrated but in a very angry mood and manner and asked me to admit what he heard. Before I could say something, Complainant shouted at me and punched me, broke my dress and cut my head with the knife and blood begin to come down from my head I was scared of myself and my body, and in case he would not only harm me but even kill me, so I just say with ease and admit so he would not continue to hit me or further hurt me. Your Worship, it was not only this time that I have suffered from his hand - Complainant objected on the ground that this is the unrelated incident in the past - objection upheld

Q: Is it correct that he shouted at you and fought you before he asked you to hold the Bible and ask you to swear on the Bible?

A: Yes, Your Worship.

Q: After you suffered hurt and pain from Complainant's hand, you did make some statements. Is it true that the statements you made are not true?

A: Your Worship, I did receive a lot of pain and personal injury from Complainant that time so I did admit, but it was not true. '

Q: The basis of Complainant's enquiry was on the grounds that you went to 1st Defendant's office and used the telephone. Tell the Court when was that.

A: Your Worship, it was on 17th December 2003 that I asked 1st Defendant to use his office telephone.

Q: Is it true that you did have sexual intercourse with 1st Defendant when you went and used telephone in his office?

A: Your Worship, it is not true.

Q: Tell the Court that you went to 1st Defendant's office to use the telephone on 17/12/03, is that correct?

A: Yes, Your Worship. I went to his office and used the telephone 17th December 2003 for 3 minutes only.

Q: So what would you say to the statement you made to Complainant on 6th February 2004.

A: Your Worship, the statement and admission I made to Complainant on 06/02/04 is not true.

In Cross-Examination the Complainant asked the following questions:

Q: Is it true that your name is Anna Boyamo?

A: Yes, Your Worship.

Q: Is it true that both of you were married?

A: Yes, Your Worship.

Q: Tell the Court, how you came to know 1st Defendant

A: I know 1st Defendant because, he is your boss.

Q: If those stories were not true, why didn't you hold the Bible and swear?

A: Your Worship, before I could talk, Complainant had already assaulted me and gave me blood, so I was afraid of my body so I just said that it was true.

Q: On that date, it was just me and you, I asked you to hold the Bible and tell the truth, but after you admit it, I was so upset but the fact that you had sexual intercourse with my boss Mr. Duadak that is why I belt you.

A: Your Worship, Complainant did not give me that Bible first, he assaulted me first and later asked me to swear on the Bible, I feel for my body from further pain so I just said it.

THE COURT'S ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE

Issues

1.1 Whether the confession or admission by 2nd Defendant on 6th February 2004, in respect to the alleged act of adultery.

The Complainant alleges and rest his case, in my view, on the voluntary confessional admission by the 2nd Defendant that the alleged act of adultery did take place on the 16th December 2003 in 1st Defendant's office between the hours of 12.00 - 1.00 pm at Bomana Police College.

According to Complainant, the 2nd Defendant gave graphic narration of her recollection of what had happened between 1st Defendant and herself that upset him so much that before he lose his cool, and demanded that 2nd Defendant tell him everything she did with the 1st Defendant.

The 1st Defendant denied from the outset the act of adultery with 2nd Defendant on 16th December 2003, between the hours of 12.00 - 1.00 pm but did admit that he did allow the 2nd Defendant to use the phone on 17th December 2003 between 12.00 -1.00 pm.

The Court having heard the 2nd Defendant is satisfied that the voluntary admission by 2nd Defendant as claimed by Complainant was made, however, it was made, in my view, under the circumstances of extreme physical intimidation together with the use of physical violence and infliction of real physical harm on her by the Complainant on 6th February 2004.

Whilst the admission only confirms the event of that day 06/02/04 but not the truth of the matter as alleged. This is confirmed by the demeanour of the Complainant during the trial when 2nd Defendant was in the witness box responding to the questions asked by Court as to how she was assaulted by Complainant during her interrogation by Complainant on 06/02/04.

The Court observed that Complainant made obvious disapproval body language to the 2nd Defendant over her account of her being assaulted by Complainant The obvious body language exhibited by Complainant only goes to confirm that 2nd Defendant did suffer both non-physical threat and real physical violence at the hands of the Complainant calculated to force and obtain an admission from the 2nd Defendant of an act of adultery with 1st Defendant on 16th December 2003 in 1st Defendant's office between the hours of 12.00 noon and 1.00 pm.

The Complainant is not just an ordinary policeman but also an officer who is specialized in the field of Criminal Investigation work and its due process of normal Police investigation procedural protocols and process on how to conduct interview with an accused.

It is my humble view that a concern husband put in the same shoes as Complainant over unfaithful allegations against his spouse, 2nd Defendant, it would have been proper that the interrogation would have been done in the presence of a third party to witness the event.

This would, in my view, add credibility to the confessionary admission and statements made by 2nd Defendant there and then. This would also confirm and rule out any allegation that the confessionary admission and statements were made and obtained without any undue influence through use of threat or use of physical violence by the Complainant, who was the interrogator himself. The Complainant chose to do it alone himself, thus raises very critical and serious credibility issues on the confessionary admission and statements allegedly being obtained voluntarily from 2nd Defendant. The other important consideration ought to be noted is the validity of the admission obtained in view of the alleged use of physical violence thus, impact greatly on the correctness and voluntariness of the content and the nature of the statement alleged to have been made by the 2nd Defendant.

The Court is satisfied that the admission by 2nd Defendant was obtained through the use of physical violence and threat by Complainant. The Court therefore rejects the alleged voluntary confessionary admission and statements by 2nd Defendant as claimed and relied upon by the Complainant, in this case.

2.2: The next pertinent issue is whether there is any relevant material evidence independent of alleged voluntary confession by 2nd Defendant in favour of the Complainant to establish the act of adultery as alleged to have been committed on 16th December 2003 by Defendants each and severally.

The above issue on this case arose when the second Defendant went to the office of Executive Officer, the 1st Defendant, to use the office STD telephone to call her brother in Popondetta. The reason was for her to call her brother in Popondetta to secure spacing for their elder daughter on the 17th December 2003. Both Defendants were adamant that this did not happen on the 16th December 2003 as alleged by the Complainant. The issue then, is there any clear independent "evidence to support and established the- act of adultery committed by the Defendants on 17th December 2003, though the dates vary but the event complained of is same.

The 1st Defendant testified during cross examination that he never had any contact nor sighted 2nd Defendant on the 16th December 2003, and he was not even available during the period between 12.00pm and 1.00pm on 16th December 2003.

The 1st Defendant claimed that he was in his residence during the said material period and the date in question.

The 2nd Defendant reaffirmed and corroborated 1st Defendant's statement during cross-examination that she never saw 1st Defendant nor neither met him on 16th December 2003. However, both denied categorically that there was any act of adultery that allegedly took place in 1st Defendant's office on 16th December 2003 and even on 17th December 2003, for that matter.

The Complainant, in my view, failed to establish any material facts and relevant corroborative evidence to substantiate the allegation of adultery between the 1st and 2nd Defendant on either of those two days and more particularly on 16th December 2003, as alleged by the Complainant.

The Complainant made reference to certain witness' statement in his affidavit, however, they were made on mere speculation with no proper specific dates and lack material facts to support the alleged act of adultery in question, between the two Defendants.

The Complainant made brief reference to S.28 of Evidence Act that it applies in criminal matters only and that it should not apply in the civil proceedings. He submitted that it is applicable in criminal proceeding and thus, objection by Defendants that confession was involuntary should not be entertained by Court.

The Court do appreciate Complainant's proposition but of the view that confession or admission by 2nd Defendant, under the circumstances was not voluntary. Thus, it does impact against the spirit of S.28 of the Evidence Act. The Complainant submitted in his final address that s. 28 of Evidence Act should not apply because adultery is not a criminal proceedings. The Complainant, on the other end, failed to provide alternative provisions where confession obtained through threat and inducement should not be used in the civil proceedings.

I take exception to this school of thought as submitted by Complainant and apply the liberal interpretation approach that S. 28 of Evidence Act ought to apply equally in the civil case as well as in this case. That is to say that, unless the contrary is proven, the voluntary confession obtained is admissible under S. 28 of the Evidence Act.

The obvious observation during trial was Complainant demeanour in Court during 2nd Defendant giving evidence in-chief. This was through Complainant's body language of his disapproval of how she demonstrated the assault executed on her by Complainant in Court. This, in my view, clearly confirmed 2nd Defendant's assertion that Complainant did use violence to force the admission he claimed to be voluntarily being made by the 2nd Defendant on 6th February 2004. The Court therefore rejects the voluntary confessional admission, but accept the fact that such statement was in fact made, but do not establish the truth of the matter that has been complained of against the Defendants each and severally. I am satisfied that the admission is involuntary as confirmed through cross-examination and body language by Complainant in Court.

It follows therefore that the admission by 2nd Defendant was made under real threat and through use of physical violence by Complainant against the 2nd Defendant. That being the case, there need to be an independent witness to corroborate the Complainant's evidence to directly pin down the act in question. That is, it was during lunch hour between 12.00 noon and 1.00 pm, and given the fact that she used the telephone for 3 minutes only and left because her brother was not available at unspecified location in Popondetta.

One might ask how could it be possible to commit an act of adultery in 3 minutes? This issue ought to be addressed, in view of the given set of facts and the physical circumstances that she was placed in. There is no dispute that the phone call was made in the presence of other workers in the same building. Under this given scenario, it is practically impossible, in my view, for Defendants each and severally to engage in such an act, hence Court also rejects this proposition.

In passing this case would not have come this far if 2nd Defendant was honest and stick to her story from the start. But she appears to buy into Complainant's anger, in her hope to quench and to avoid any use of physical violence on her by Complainant. The 2nd Defendant in exercising her own sense of justice under the extreme peculiar circumstances took a falsified trade-off initiative and provided a succinct graphic narration of the event of 10 minutes during lunch period on 16th December 2003. I am of the view that if she did, she is capable of making up that story, knowing that she is a married woman with five (5) children as this case unfold, it is an obvious undeniable fact that she did lie to her husband hence, it did not improve her parallel relationship with her husband, though, it impacts greatly with her horizontal relationship with the Creator. It is unfortunate that she was forced but chose to lie of which is highly regrettable.

With the foregoing conclusions, I am satisfied that she was not honest to herself and did cook up an unreal story, hence landed her and 1st Defendant in Court. It is obvious that 2nd Defendant from the evidence in Court was not alone. It was 1st Defendant's wife who started the unfortunate legal marathon track, which she did not expect. But may be done out of sheer frustration, unwillingly committed her husband, 1st Defendant, through this unfortunate legal battle ordeal, in Court. A lesson may be learnt that it pays to shut up, but failing thereof put her own soul in the hot water.

Having said what I said in the foregoing, I find that there is no sufficient credible evidence to enter a safe conviction against the Defendants each and severally.

The Court therefore dismiss the case against the Defendants and discharge Defendants each and severally forthwith. Costs be met by each party.

Appearance:

Lawyer for the Complainant: In person
Lawyer for 1st Defendant: In person
Lawyer for 2nd Defendant: Ms Lista Lilly Nahuasi; Legal Aid - LTI