The Supreme Court in Suva dismissed an appeal in a defamation case filed by a landlord against his former tenant, a Nadi-based doctor, and ordered the landlord to pay $10,000 on June 28.
Landlord and dentist Dr. Uma Sharma and former tenant Dr. Isireli Biumaitotoya, also known as Leighly Darling, appeared before Acting Chief Justice Salesi Temo, Justice Lowell Goddard, and Justice William Young for the judgment.
Dr. Sharma had sued Dr. Biumaitotoya for defamation in 2012, and in 2019, the High Court in Lautoka had ordered Dr. Biumaitotoya to pay a $70,000 fine 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 at the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Dr. Biumaitotoya, dismissing Dr. Sharma’s appeal and ordered the payment to Dr. Biumaitotoya.
This case stemmed from the High Court’s 2019 decision, which ordered Dr. Biumaitotoya to pay $70,000 in general damages and $29,400 in interest for defaming Dr. Sharma in an email. Dr. Biumaitotoya had allegedly defamed Dr. Sharma by sending emails to 144 doctors about potential receivership of property and details of Sharma’s marital issues, urging them not to rent the premises.
In a separate proceeding, Dr. Sharma also filed cases to recover unpaid rent from Dr. Biumaitotoya. The High Court had decreed Dr. Biumaitotoya to pay $70,000 in general damage within 14 days from May 7, 2019, with Dr. Sharma entitled to additional interest and potential further claims under indemnity costs.
The Court of Appeal reviewed the email’s content and meanings, determining it was not defamatory. Justice Temo disagreed with the initial judgment, arguing the trial had been conducted with the understanding that the truth of Dr. Biumaitotoya’s allegations was at issue.
Justice Temo pointed to several incidents involving Dr. Sharma, including harassment through opening a fish shop next to Biumaitotoya’s surgery and welding the surgery’s backdoor shut. Moreover, claims involving Dr. Sharma’s wife’s supposed lover and the erection of a steel barricade were seen as harassment instigated by Dr. Sharma.
The court concluded that Dr. Biumaitotoya’s failure to pay rent to Dr. Sharma was unwise, though Dr. Sharma’s actions as a landlord were deemed inappropriate. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and Dr. Sharma was ordered to pay costs to Dr. Biumaitotoya.