The Supreme Court in Suva has dismissed an appeal filed by a landlord in a defamation case. The court ordered the landlord to pay $10,000 to his former tenant, a Nadi-based doctor, on June 28.
Dentist Dr. Uma Sharma, the landlord, and Dr. Isireli Biumaitotoya, known as Leighly Darling, the former tenant, appeared in the Supreme Court in Suva before Acting Chief Justice Salesi Temo, Justice Lowell Goddard, and Justice William Young. Dr. Sharma initially sued Dr. Biumaitotoya for defamation in 2012, and in 2019, the High Court in Lautoka ordered Dr. Biumaitotoya to pay Dr. Sharma a fine of $70,000.
Dr. Biumaitotoya’s solicitor, Anil Singh, appealed this decision at the Court of Appeal in Suva, which resulted in a favorable ruling for Dr. Biumaitotoya. Subsequently, Dr. Sharma sought leave to appeal and an extension of time to do so at the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Dr. Biumaitotoya, dismissing Dr. Sharma’s appeal and ordering Dr. Sharma to compensate Dr. Biumaitotoya.
The background of the case involves an order by the High Court in Lautoka for Dr. Biumaitotoya to pay Dr. Sharma $70,000 in general damages and $29,400 in interest for allegedly defaming Dr. Sharma in a 2019 email. Dr. Biumaitotoya had allegedly sent emails to 144 doctors, suggesting that the property might go into receivership and revealing personal details about Dr. Sharma’s marital issues, discouraging them from renting the premises.
Initially filed at the High Court in Lautoka in 2012, the case saw Justice Jude Nanayakkara deliver a ruling on May 7, 2019. Dr. Sharma had requested Dr. Biumaitotoya to vacate the premises and filed additional cases to recover unpaid rent from him. The court ordered Dr. Biumaitotoya to pay $70,000 in general damages within 14 days from the judgment date, with interest accruing on the amount from the writ’s filing date in 2012, totaling an additional $29,400. Dr. Sharma was also entitled to further accruing interest and potential indemnity costs.
In examining the contents of the email, the Court of Appeal determined that the email was not defamatory, nor did it address the truth of what was said. Acting Chief Justice Temo disagreed with Justice Nanayakkara’s judgment, noting that the trial focused heavily on the truth of the allegations, a significant issue by May 2019 when the judgment was delivered. Justice Temo criticized the Court of Appeal for not analyzing the email comprehensively and for failing to engage with its content and the meanings attributed by Dr. Sharma.
Justice Temo inferred that the email was, in fact, defamatory, and believed the Court of Appeal had erred in allowing the appeal. He also found Dr. Biumaitotoya’s evidence more credible, noting Dr. Sharma’s evasiveness during cross-examination and incidents involving harassment, such as opening a fish shop next to Dr. Biumaitotoya’s surgery and welding his surgery door shut.
The court observed that Dr. Biumaitotoya, although trying to do the right thing by paying rent to Dr. Sharma’s wife, was unwise in not paying his rent directly to Dr. Sharma. The judgment noted that if Dr. Sharma had evicted Dr. Biumaitotoya through legal means, it would have been reasonable. However, Dr. Sharma’s actions, entangling his marital problems with his professional relationship with Dr. Biumaitotoya, labeled him a poor landlord.
Justice Temo granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal and ordered Dr. Sharma to pay costs to Dr. Biumaitotoya.