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 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.
Background
This appeal case involved Dr. Biumaitotoya, who was ordered by the High Court in Lautoka to pay another medical professional $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 Dr. Sharma when he sent emails to 144 doctors stating the property might go into receivership and detailing Dr. Sharma’s marital problems, dissuading them from renting the premises.
This matter was first filed at the High Court in Lautoka in 2012, and Justice Jude Nanayakkara delivered his ruling on it on May 7, 2019.
Dr. Sharma had asked Dr. Biumaitotoya to vacate the premises and also filed two cases to recover unpaid rent from Dr. Biumaitotoya.
The court ordered Dr. Biumaitotoya to pay $70,000 in general damage 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 the writ (2012), totaling an additional $29,400. Dr. Sharma was also entitled to four percent simple interest on $70,000 from the date of the judgment until payment is made in full, and Dr. Sharma could file further claims under indemnity costs.
Determination
The Court of Appeal closely examined the contents of the email and determined the meanings attributed to it. The judgment was pitched at a high level of generality and proceeded because the email was not defamatory nor did it address the truth of what was said.
Justice Temo disagreed with Justice Jude Nanayakkara’s judgment, arguing that it did not recognize the combined effect of the unorthodox statement of claim which pleaded that the defamatory meanings were false for particularized reasons and the statement of defense which denied the falsity. This meant that the issue had been joined as to the truth of what Dr. Biumaitotoya had said.
Secondly, the trial was conducted on the basis that the truth of the allegations was very much an issue. By May 2019, when Justice Nanayakkara delivered his judgment, it was too late to say that justification had not been raised.
“The Court of Appeal judgment did not analyze the email for what it meant and offered no opinion in this respect. Its finding that it was not defamatory was entirely conclusory. Instead of deciding on this basis, it should have engaged in a granular way with the text of Dr. Biumaitotoya’s email, the meanings Dr. Sharma attributed to it, and whether it was defamatory in any event, just on the ordinary language used,” said Justice Temo.
“If it had done so, it would or at least should have concluded that the email was defamatory. In short, I consider that the court of appeal was wrong to allow the appeal on the basis it did,” Justice Temo added, noting that words of abuse are not usually construed literally and that Dr. Biumaitotoya’s email was somewhat of a rant and for this reason unlikely to be read literally.
The court heard that Dr. Biumaitotoya’s evidence was preferred by Justice Temo since many of Dr. Sharma’s answers during cross-examination were evasive. It was clear that Dr. Sharma did arrange for a fish shop to open next to Dr. Biumaitotoya’s surgery which the court saw as direct harassment.
Thirdly, Dr. Biumaitotoya gave evidence so strange that Justice Temo thought it unlikely that he could have made them up. This regarded Dr. Sharma’s engagement with Dr. Biumaitotoya over Dr. Sharma’s wife’s supposed lover, the welding shut of Dr. Biumaitotoya’s surgery backdoor, and the steel barricade.
The evidence regarding the supposed lover was consistent with the letter Dr. Biumaitotoya’s lawyers wrote on June 15, 2011, and the record of calls to his cell phone.
There was no challenge to Dr. Biumaitotoya’s specific evidence that he wrote to the National Fire Authority, the welding and barricade incident, and the fish shop incident.
Justice Temo said the inference was obvious that these incidents were instigated by Dr. Sharma.
The court heard that while Dr. Biumaitotoya thought he was doing the right thing by only paying rent to Dr. Sharma’s wife, it was unwise of him not to pay his rent to Dr. Sharma. If he had been evicted by legal means, it would have been reasonable.
However, the court considered Dr. Sharma allowing his marital problems to become entangled with his tenant and landlord relationship agreement with Dr. Biumaitotoya, placing a fish shop next to Dr. Biumaitotoya’s surgery, and welding his surgery door shut while placing the steel barricade as him being a bad landlord.
Justice Temo granted the leave to appeal, dismissed the appeal application, and ordered Dr. Sharma to pay costs to Dr. Biumaitotoya.
Feedback: waisean@fijisun.com.fj