Supreme Court
Action No. 6 of 1982
2nd April, 1982
Moe, C.J.

Mr. Dean Lindo S.C. for the Appellant
Respondent in Person

Appeal from Magistrate's order adjudging Appellant putative father of Respondent's 3 children - Complainant's evidence corroborated - Failure to listen to a no case submission does not substantially affect the case - Evidence of Income Tax Commissioner challenged as inadmissible - Not clear from record that evidence of Income Tax Commissioner related to Appellant so as to be relevant - Further, no attention paid to Section 4 of Income Tax Ordinance precluding disclosure of information other than in certain circumstances - Magistrate ought not to have admitted evidence of Income Tax Commissioner - Remaining evidence sufficient for Magistrate to have come to finding - Finding not disturbed - Appeal dismissed.

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is from an order of the Magistrate adjudging the Appellant the putative father of the Respondent's three children by name, Eartha, Pamela and Wallace Jr. There were four grounds of appeal-

(1) That the Court had no jurisdiction,
(2) The decision could not be supported having regard to the evidence;
(3) That evidence of a witness was admitted without it being shown that the witness was competent to give the evidence; and
(4) The Appellant was not permitted to make a no case submission, an error substantially affecting the merits of the case.

In support of ground (4), the Appellant swore an Affidavit indicating that he intended to make a submission that the Respondent's evidence was not corroborated. If that submission had been made, it would have been properly overruled. For at the close of the Respondent's case, there was evidence sufficient on which the Magistrate could hold that the Complainant's evidence was corroborated. I do not find that the failure to listen to a no case submission in this matter substantially affects the case.

With regard to the third ground, it was submitted that the Magistrate wrongly admitted the evidence of the Income Tax Commissioner who said that one Wallace Joseph had filed an income tax return in which he claimed an allowance for five children, including three by names, Eartha, Pamela and Wallace. It was contended that there was no evidence showing that the Income Tax Commissioner was competent to give that evidence on the grounds that: (1) the Income Tax return of which he gave secondary evidence was not put in evidence, and (2) there was no evidence that the return related to the Appellant. It is not clear from the record that the evidence of the Income Tax Commissioner related to the Appellant, i.e. that the return was that of the Appellant, so as to be relevant to the matter before the Magistrate. In addition, no attention seemed to have been paid to section 4 of the Income Tax Ordinance, Cap 38, which precludes disclosure of information other than in and under certain circumstances. On the basis of what appears on the record, I am inclined to the view that the Magistrate ought not to have admitted the evidence of the Income Tax Commissioner. However, even if the evidence of the Income Tax Commissioner is put aside, there is still left sufficient evidence on which the Magistrate could come to the finding at which he arrived.

The submission that the Court had no jurisdiction rested on the basis that there was a finding that there was no evidence that the Appellant had paid money for the maintenance of the children concerned within twelve months next after their birth. This ground and the second ground are, by implication, both covered by the decision in respect of the third and fourth grounds dealt with above.

Appeal dismissed.

----------OO----------