Disinterested Witnesses and the Value of Their Testimonies

In Court, witnesses are called to testify and give their version of events. However, their credibility will almost invariably be challenged if they have a personal interest in the matter. Conversely, disinterested witnesses are not subjected to the same level of scrutiny. They are regarded as neutral because they have no vested interest in the outcome case.

The Value of Testimonies by Disinterested Witnesses

Here’s what the Courts think of the testimonies by disinterested witnesses:

“…We find no good reason for these two witnesses to have concocted their story as neither of them had anything to gain from doing so….”
Gopal Sri Ram JCA in Lee Ing Chin @ Lee Teck Seng & Ors v Gan Yook Chin & Anor [2003] 3 2MLJ 97

“I find there is no reason for me to disbelieve DWI’s evidence. She said she only charged RM 100 for the will. Even the plaintiff confirmed that there was no disciplinary proceedings or police report lodged against DWI. The reasonable conclusion for this is that there was no fraud or mala fide in the preparation of the will. I accept that she has no reason to lie and that she is a disinterested witness with direct evidence. She is a professional and I believe she has made the assessment in a reasonable way.”
Zaleha Binti Yusof JC in Kamalavathy a/p V.V Ratnam & Anor Thiruvebdran a/l Nadosan v Vasantha Devi a/p V. Chelliah & Ors [2009] MLJU 1575

“Evidence of this close relationship came from the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs as well as from Madam Siow Kim Moi (PW4), a 56 year old Singaporean housewife who is not related to Madam Ho or to any of the plaintiffs but is well acquainted with both Madam Ho and the 1st plaintiff. I find PW4 to be a disinterested witness and is the best person to give an unbiased account of the nature of the relationship between the 1st plaintiff and Madam Ho…”
Abdul Rahman Sebli J in Lim Kang Hai & Ors v Lim Chik Lock [2013] MLJU 614

” I start off with the evidence of PW2 who as stated earlier is a resident of the Kampung Talantang and related to both the defendant and the Tunda. I consider him to be a disinterested witness in that he is not affected by the outcome of the case and has no interest financial or otherwise in the case. As such, his evidence ought to be given credence unless there are cogent reasons not to do so. Of course there is no such evidence before the court in that he held a grudge against the defendant or that the defendant held a grudge against him. Further the fact he was willing to give evidence against his relative in the person of the defendant and for the plaintiff who is not related to him in my view should be given its due weight.

I come now to PW3 whom I also treat as a disinterested witness for the same reasons as PW2. He is also related to both the defendant and Tunda and above all the Ketua Kampung of Kampung Talantang. The court can take judicial notice that as the Ketua Kampung he is respected by the residents living there and unless there is evidence to the contrary his evidence should be given due weight. Again here there is no evidence that he held a grudge against the defendant and plus the fact that he is willing to testify against the defendant who as stated earlier is a relative shows that he is a witness of credence.”
David Wong Dak Wah JC in Ukun Ampong v Mundan bin Gomasi [2010] MLJU 959

Furthermore, in a case of a dispute on handwriting, the evidence of a disinterested witness will be preferred over a handwriting expert. The Court of Appeal in Lee Ing Chin (supra) propounded as follows:

“We consider it to be a well established general guide to the judicial appreciation of handwriting evidence that where there is a sharp conflict between the direct testimony of a disinterested witness on the one side and that of a handwriting expert on the other as to the genuineness of the execution of a document, then it is a safe course for a court to prefer the direct evidence.”

Key Takeaways

As seen from the above cases, the Court is more inclined to accept the testimonies of disinterested witnesses. They are more reliable than the litigants because they stand to gain nothing from the final outcome. They are not affected and are less likely to be influenced. But it is pertinent to note that their evidence should not be treated as the gospel truth. Cogent reasons must nonetheless be shown as to why their evidence should not be accepted. I would venture to add that possible arguments may be the existence of bias, wrongful perception or understanding of the event, personal limitations or incapacities such as poor eyesight or hearing. All in all, the evidence of disinterested witnesses will no doubt buttress a party’s case significantly.