The Supreme Court in Suva has dismissed an appeal in a defamation case filed by a landlord, ordering 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 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 $70,000 in fines to Dr. Sharma. Dr. Biumaitotoya’s solicitor, Anil Singh, challenged the decision 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 ordering the payment to Dr. Biumaitotoya.
This case initially arose when the High Court in Lautoka ordered Dr. Biumaitotoya to pay $70,000 in general damages and $29,400 in interest for defaming Dr. Sharma in an email message in 2019. Dr. Biumaitotoya allegedly defamed his former landlord by sending emails to 144 doctors about potential receivership of the property and personal details of Dr. Sharma’s marital problems, discouraging them from renting the premises.
The matter was first filed at the High Court in Lautoka in 2012, where Justice Jude Nanayakkara delivered his ruling on May 7, 2019. Dr. Sharma had asked Dr. Biumaitotoya to vacate the premises and filed two cases to recover unpaid rent from him.
The Court of Appeal closely reviewed the contents of the email and the meanings attributed to it. Justice Temo disagreed with Justice Nanayakkara’s judgment for not recognizing the unorthodox statement of claim regarding the defamatory meanings and the issue of truth. The trial’s focus was on the truth of the allegations, and by May 2019, it was too late to claim that justification had not been raised.
Justice Temo criticized the Court of Appeal for not engaging in a detailed analysis of the email’s content and for concluding it was not defamatory without thorough examination. He argued that the email was defamatory and that the Court of Appeal should not have allowed the appeal on the basis it did.
The court also preferred Dr. Biumaitotoya’s evidence over Dr. Sharma’s, as many of Dr. Sharma’s answers during cross-examination were evasive. It was evident that Dr. Sharma had arranged for a fish shop to open next to Dr. Biumaitotoya’s surgery, which the court saw as harassment.
The court heard that Dr. Biumaitotoya’s evidence about Dr. Sharma’s engagement with him over marital issues, the welding shut of the surgery door, and the steel barricade was credible. This evidence was consistent with other provided records and was not challenged.
Justice Temo concluded that Dr. Sharma’s actions, driven by his marital problems, made him a bad landlord. He granted the leave to appeal, dismissed the appeal application, and ordered Dr. Sharma to pay costs to Dr. Biumaitotoya.