[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-281075-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":81,"doc-detail-281075-en":126},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","asang-v-mawa-court-of-appeal-judgment","Asang v Mawa - Court of Appeal Judgment","","Appeal against findings of the Senior Magistrate dated 2022 that dismissed the appellant’s claim. The appellant challenged the Magistrate’s approach on two grounds: failure to consider sworn statements and other supporting evidence, and reliance on hearsay based on assumptions. The Magistrate assessed competing sworn testimony regarding drinking and driving and whether the respondent terminated the contract by removing the vehicle key. The High Court rejected the first ground, finding the defence witnesses’ evidence more credible, and dismissed the appeal on that ground.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/","Template",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/","Letters",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/asang-v-mawa-court-of-appeal-judgment/281075/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/asang-v-mawa-court-of-appeal-judgment/281075.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Theodore","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-28","2026-09-16",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",11,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What was the appellant’s first ground of appeal?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"The appellant argued that the Magistrate did not consider the claimant’s sworn statements and supporting evidence, and that the Magistrate relied on hearsay based on assumptions.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"What issues did the Magistrate have to decide?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The Magistrate had to decide whether the claimant was drinking and driving, and whether the respondent terminated the contract when retrieving the vehicle key.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"Why did the court dismiss the first ground of appeal?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"The court found that the Magistrate considered all relevant sworn evidence, concluded the defence witnesses’ evidence was more weighty, and drew the appropriate conclusion that the claimant was drunk and driving based on actions supported by the evidence.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},281075,1791350383,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,93,98,103,108,113,117,122],{"id":55,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":89,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":90,"show_sort_weight":91,"slug":92},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":94,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":95,"show_sort_weight":96,"slug":97},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":99,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":100,"show_sort_weight":101,"slug":102},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":104,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":105,"show_sort_weight":106,"slug":107},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":109,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":110,"show_sort_weight":111,"slug":112},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":114,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":115,"slug":116},18,30,"letters",{"id":118,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":119,"show_sort_weight":120,"slug":121},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":123,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":125},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":127},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":128,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":129,"doc_module":22,"category_id":114,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":130,"file_id":131,"file_url":132,"file_type":133,"file_size":134,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":33,"language":135,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":136,"faqs":137,"seo_title":138,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":139,"read_time":26},7971461740886,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_3d24733baf745e90a7e4bdd5f77d97b2","# INTHE SUPREME COURT OF\n\nTHE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU  \n(Civi Jurisdiction)  \n6.The Magistrate said:  \nBefore:  \nCounsel;  \nDate of Hearing:  \nDate of Judgment:  \nJustice Oliver A.Saksak  \nMr Rollanson Willie for the appellantMrLent Tevi for the respondent17h July 202320h July 2023  \n1.This appeal is against the findings of the Senior Magistrate dated 44 November 2022 whereby the claimof the appellant was dismissed.  \n2.Two grounds were raised (a)that the Magistrate did not consider the claimant's two sworn statementsand the other evidence filed in support of his claim,and (b)that the Magistrate had relied on hearsayevidence based on assumptions.  \n3.The Magistrate had to decide on 2 issues (a)whether the claimant was drinking and driving and (b)whether the respondent teminated the contract when retrieving the key of the vehicle.  \n4.In detemining those two issues the Magistrate considered 6 sworn statements,2 statements by theclaimant,one for his wife Jane,one for Emilie Wanemay,one for Jean Yves Fabiano and one fromMagali Laicha.  \n5.The Magistrate also considered the evidence by swomn statements from the 6 defence witnesses whowere Philip Banga,Ricky Jack,Solomon Livo,Jonas Alick,JackAlick and Bredley Timothy.  \nBETWEEN:  Solomon AsangAppellant  \nAND:Lyah Mawa trading as SantaTrading CompanyRespondent  \nJUDGMENT  \n“Against this,all 6 witnesses for fhe defendanf filed evidence to say that the claimant was at the fimedrinking alcohol was drving.Jack Alick and Bredley Timotnywentto the ckaiuantshouse to fetch his  \nGOURT  \nstuf thaf he forgot in the taxi that the claimant was driving.Upon rivaf at his house he was not homeand the claimants brother told them that the claimant was out again drinking with his friends in the car.The claimant disputes this evidence saying it is a hearsay evidence,\"  \n7.The Magistrate however stated that defence witnesses Philip Banga,Ricky Jack,Solomon Livo-andAlick Jonas allsaid they were eye witnesses who saw the claimant drinking at La Place and dancingwith a botle of wine in his hand,the music in the car being loud.He was seen at the Pump Station sillwith the botle of wine in his hand while stopping a fight between Clovis and his wife.  \n8.After allthat evidence the Magistrate said:  \n“I consider the above evidence as first hand evidence being eye winesses even though the claimant'scounsel dispute thaf they mistaken the bottle of kava with a bottle of wine,there are at least 5witnesseswho saw him dancing with the bottle and one of them saw him again with a botle of wine at PumpsStation when he was rescuing officer Clovis from a fight.\"  \n9.With those evidence the Magistrate was satisfied that the evidence of the defendants witnessesCorroborated each other and made the conclusion;  \n“with the above evidence am saistied that the firsfisue that claimant being drunk when he was divingwas made out.\"  \n10.Mr Wile submitted the Magistrate was wrong to reach that conclusion because she had not consideredthe claimant's two statements and the other witnesses,and that she had merely based on assumptions.  \n11.That submision is rejected.The.Magistrate considered all 6 witnesses evidence including theclaimant's two statements against the evidence of the 6 defendant's statements.She concluded thestatements and evidence of these witnesses corroborated each other.In other words the Magistrateprefered the evidence of the witnesses for the defendant as having more weight than the evidence ofthe claimant.  \n12.The evidence of the claimant lacked support and corroboration.He could have produced evidence fromhis driver,Dalesa,Abel andor Randel and Sakias o rebut the evidence of the witnesses for thedefendant about the bottle of wine and the drinking in the taxi car.  \n13.There was clearly evidence available from the claimant's wife,Jane that a bottle of wine was in the carand it was half full.And it was the claimant himself who took the halfbottle of wine into the car:(seeparagraph 5 of Jane Enock's statement),The ques","cbCaic2YgwT6OP8A","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaic2YgwT6OP8A","pdf",223008,"English","# INTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU\n## Appeal background and grounds\n## Issues assessed by the Magistrate\n## Evidence considered (claimant vs defence witnesses)\n## Magistrate’s conclusions on drinking and driving\n## Court’s rejection of the first ground\n## Second ground on contract termination","[{\"question\":\"What was the appellant’s first ground of appeal?\",\"answer\":\"The appellant argued that the Magistrate did not consider the claimant’s sworn statements and supporting evidence, and that the Magistrate relied on hearsay based on assumptions.\"},{\"question\":\"What issues did the Magistrate have to decide?\",\"answer\":\"The Magistrate had to decide whether the claimant was drinking and driving, and whether the respondent terminated the contract when retrieving the vehicle key.\"},{\"question\":\"Why did the court dismiss the first ground of appeal?\",\"answer\":\"The court found that the Magistrate considered all relevant sworn evidence, concluded the defence witnesses’ evidence was more weighty, and drew the appropriate conclusion that the claimant was drunk and driving based on actions supported by the evidence.\"}]","Asang v Mawa - Court of Appeal Judgment | PDF",1789563961]