The Supreme Court in Suva has dismissed an appeal in a defamation case filed by a landlord. The court has ordered the landlord, Dr. Uma Sharma, a dentist, to pay his former tenant, Dr. Isireli Biumaitotoya, a Nadi-based doctor, $10,000 as of June 28.
Both Dr. Sharma and Dr. Biumaitotoya, also known as Leighly Darling, were present before Acting Chief Justice Salesi Temo, Justice Lowell Goddard, and Justice William Young at the Supreme Court in Suva for the judgment.
Dr. Sharma had initially sued Dr. Biumaitotoya for defamation in 2012. The High Court in Lautoka, in 2019, had ordered Dr. Biumaitotoya to pay Dr. Sharma a $70,000 fine. Dr. Biumaitotoya’s solicitor, Anil Singh, challenged this ruling, and an appeal was filed and granted at the Court of Appeal in Suva. Dr. Sharma then sought to appeal and requested more time to do so at the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Dr. Biumaitotoya, dismissing the appeal from Dr. Sharma and ordering payment to Dr. Biumaitotoya.
This case stems from the High Court in Lautoka’s 2019 order for Dr. Biumaitotoya to pay Dr. Sharma $70,000 in general damages and $29,400 in interest for defaming him in an email in 2019. Dr. Biumaitotoya allegedly defamed Dr. Sharma by emailing 144 doctors about potential receivership of the property and discussing Dr. Sharma’s marital issues, advising them against renting the premises.
Dr. Sharma had originally filed the case at the High Court in Lautoka in 2012, requesting Dr. Biumaitotoya to vacate the premises and filing suits to recover unpaid rent. The court had previously ordered Dr. Biumaitotoya to pay $70,000 in general damages, with additional interest, and allowed Dr. Sharma to claim further indemnity costs.
The Court of Appeal analyzed the email content and ruled that it was not defamatory, opposing the earlier judgment by Justice Jude Nanayakkara. Justice Temo disagreed with the High Court judgment, emphasizing that the trial should have considered the truthfulness of the email’s allegations and how they were presented.
Justice Temo noted that the Court of Appeal failed to accurately interpret the email’s content and its defamatory nature. He stated that Dr. Biumaitotoya’s statements in the email were not to be taken literally as they appeared more as a rant.
Justice Temo found Dr. Biumaitotoya’s evidence more credible, noting Dr. Sharma’s evasive answers during cross-examination and instances of harassment, such as the opening of a fish shop next to Dr. Biumaitotoya’s surgery.
Furthermore, testimonies regarding Dr. Sharma’s confrontations over his wife’s alleged lover, the welding shut of Dr. Biumaitotoya’s surgery door, and the steel barricade added to the complexity of the case. Evidence from Dr. Biumaitotoya was considered consistent and unchallenged, pointing to instances instigated by Dr. Sharma that the court saw as direct harassment.
The court concluded that Dr. Sharma’s entanglement of personal issues with his tenant-landlord relationship, including the harassment by opening the fish shop and welding the surgery door, made him a bad landlord. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed Dr. Sharma’s appeal and ordered him to cover the costs for Dr. Biumaitotoya.