In a notable legal development, Suva-based businessman Krishneel Krishan Kumar has lodged an appeal with the Fiji Court of Appeal against a High Court decision that held him liable for defamation and ordered him to pay over $170,000 in damages to fellow businessman Alfaaz Malam. This case, originally presided over by Justice Savenaca Banuve in the High Court, concluded on September 4, 2025, with the ruling in favor of Mr. Malam.
The High Court awarded Mr. Malam $70,000 in general and aggravated damages and $100,000 in exemplary damages, along with additional interest payments. Furthermore, Mr. Kumar was subjected to a permanent injunction and ordered to issue a public apology. The core of the dispute lies in the ownership of a shipping container. Mr. Kumar alleges that he was the legitimate consignee of the missing container and was only making good faith inquiries with the police and shipping authorities, actions he contends should not be construed as defamatory.
Represented by Nambiar Lawyers, Mr. Kumar’s appeal is based on the assertion that the trial judge misunderstood the evidence, overly relied on hearsay, and did not apply the proper legal standards for defamation. He points out that none of Malam’s witnesses could specify the exact defamatory words, nor was there clear evidence of their publication to a third party.
Additionally, Mr. Kumar’s legal team disputes the amount of damages awarded, deeming it “manifestly excessive” in light of what they argue is a lack of evidence of actual reputational or business damage to Mr. Malam. They also raise procedural issues, accusing the trial court of relying on hearsay emails and failing to call critical witnesses.
This appeal brings into focus the intricacies of defamation law and the balance between protecting one’s reputation and the right to seek answers in business dealings. The Court of Appeal is expected to schedule a hearing soon, where these issues will be thoroughly examined.
Mr. Kumar’s legal battle underscores the importance of clear and substantiated evidence in defamation cases, which often rest on the nuances of what constitutes defamatory speech and the impact of such statements on personal and professional reputations. With tensions surrounding business integrity and accountability, this case is poised to further illuminate legal standards and expectations for conduct within the business community.
Leave a comment