The Supreme Court in Suva dismissed an appeal for a defamation case filed by a landlord. The court ordered the landlord to pay his former tenant, a Nadi-based doctor, $10,000 on June 28.
The landlord, dentist Dr. Uma Sharma, and the former tenant Dr. Isireli Biumaitotoya, also known as Leighly Darling, appeared before Acting Chief Justice Salesi Temo, Justice Lowell Goddard, and Justice William Young at the Supreme Court in Suva on June 28 for the judgment.
Dr. Sharma sued Dr. Biumaitotoya for defamation in 2012, and in 2019, the High Court in Lautoka ordered Dr. Biumaitotoya to pay a $70,000 fine to Dr. Sharma. Dr. Biumaitotoya’s solicitor, Anil Singh, challenged this and filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal in Suva, which was granted.
Dr. Sharma sought leave to appeal and an extension of time to do so at the Supreme Court before the panel of judges. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Dr. Biumaitotoya, dismissing Dr. Sharma’s appeal and ordered for the payment to Dr. Biumaitotoya.
This case began when a Nadi-based Dr. Biumaitotoya was ordered by the High Court in Lautoka to pay Dr. Sharma $70,000 in general damages and $29,400 in interest for defaming Dr. Sharma in an email in 2019. Dr. Biumaitotoya allegedly defamed his former landlord Dr. Sharma by sending emails to 144 doctors stating that the property might go into receivership and included details of Dr. Sharma’s marital problems, dissuading them from renting the premises.
The matter was first filed at the High Court in Lautoka in 2012, and Justice Jude Nanayakkara delivered his ruling on May 7, 2019. Dr. Sharma requested that Dr. Biumaitotoya vacate the premises and filed two cases to recover unpaid rent from Dr. Biumaitotoya.
The court ordered Dr. Biumaitotoya to pay $70,000 in general damages within 14 days from May 7, 2019. Dr. Sharma was entitled to six percent simple interest per annum on $70,000 from the date of filing of the writ (2012), amounting to an additional $29,400. Dr. Sharma was also entitled to four percent simple interest on $70,000 from the date of the judgment of the court until the payment is made in full and could file further claims under indemnity costs.
The Court of Appeal closely examined the email’s contents and determined the meanings attributed to it. Justice Temo disagreed with Justice Jude Nanayakkara’s judgment, pointing out that the defamatory meanings were falsely implied. The trial was conducted based on the truth of the allegations, making it far too late by May 2019 to say that justification had not been raised.
Justice Temo stated that the Court of Appeal’s judgment did not analyze the email properly and its finding that it was not defamatory was conclusory. The email should have been examined for its meanings and whether it was defamatory based on ordinary language used. He believed the email was defamatory and that the Court of Appeal was wrong to allow the appeal.
The court preferred Dr. Biumaitotoya’s evidence, noting that Dr. Sharma’s answers during cross-examination were evasive and that Dr. Sharma had arranged for a fish shop to open next to Dr. Biumaitotoya’s surgery, which was seen as direct harassment.
There was also evidence involving Dr. Sharma’s engagement with Dr. Biumaitotoya over Dr. Sharma’s wife’s supposed lover, and incidents like welding shut the surgery’s backdoor and setting up a steel barricade. This evidence was consistent with letters and call records presented.
Justice Temo inferred that these incidents were instigated by Dr. Sharma. The court concluded that while Dr. Biumaitotoya thought he was justified by paying rent to Dr. Sharma’s wife, he should have paid rent to Dr. Sharma. Additionally, Dr. Sharma allowing his marital issues to influence his landlord-tenant relationship with Dr. Biumaitotoya made him a bad landlord.
Justice Temo granted the leave to appeal, dismissed the appeal application, and ordered Dr. Sharma to pay costs to Dr. Biumaitotoya.