| Fiji Islands - Jitoko v Permanent Secretary for Education & Technology - Pacific Law Materials |
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL, FIJI
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ABU0071 OF 1997S
(High Court Judicial Review No. HBJ0010 of 1997)
IGN=CENTER>BETWEEN:
:
KEPUELI JITOKO
Applicant/Appellant
AND:
(1) PERMANENT SECRETAR EDUCATION AND TECHNOLOGY
(2) SECRETARY FOR PUBLIC SERV SERVICE COMMISSION
Respondents
Coram: The Hon.Moti Moti Tikaram, President
The Rt. Hon. Sir Maurice Casey, Justice of Appeal
The Hon. Justice K.R. Handley, Justice ofal
Hearing: Monday 9 August 1999, Suva
Date of Judgment: Friday, 13 August 1999
Counsel: Mr I.V. Tuberi for the Appellant
Mr. S. Kumar for the Respondents
DECISION
(On application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court)
The Applicant was the appellant in the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No. ABU0071 of 1997S. He was employed as a teacher from 1979
until his conviction by the Magistrates’ Court in October 1990 on 3 counts of raping a pupil for which he was sentenced to two
and half years’ imprisonment. He appealed to the High Court. The appeal was allowed by Fatiaki J. on 23 May 1991 who quashed
the convictions and discharged the Appellant.
The Applicant was dismissed from the service by the Public Service Commission (the 2nd Respondent) on 10 March 1993. He brought Judicial
Review proceedings in the High Court challenging his dismissal. On 23 November 1997 Pathik J. refused the application for Judicial
Review. The Applicant appealed to this Court which dismissed the appeal on 14 May 1999. It is from this decision that the Applicant
now wishes to appeal to the Supreme Court. He comes to us under section 122(2)(a) of the 1997 Constitution which provides as follows:-
"122(2) An appeal may not be brought from a final judgment of the Court of Appeal unless:
(a) The Court of Appeal gives leave to appeal on a question certified by it to be of significant public importance;"
The questions that the Applicant wishes this Court to certify are as follows:-
"1. WHETHER an acquittal on a charge of rape is also an acquittal that no sexual intercourse took place if the accused denied the charges and
that consent was not an issue in the criminal proceedings.
2. WHETHER the charges of sexual intercourse in disciplinary proceedings under the Public Service Commission (Constitution) Regulation 1990,
which arise out of the same allegations in situations in paragraph (1) aforesaid are substantially the same for the purpose of Regulation
53 of the Regulations aforesaid." (Sic.)
