The Supreme Court in Suva has 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.
The landlord, dentist Dr. Uma Sharma, and the former tenant, Dr. Isireli 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 sued Dr. Biumaitotoya for defamation in 2012, and in 2019, the High Court in Lautoka ordered Dr. Biumaitotoya to pay Dr. Sharma a $70,000 fine. Dr. Biumaitotoya’s solicitor, Anil Singh, filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal in Suva, which was granted. Dr. Sharma then sought leave to appeal and an extension of time to do so at the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Dr. Biumaitotoya, dismissing Dr. Sharma’s appeal and ordering the payment to Dr. Biumaitotoya.
Background: This appeal involved Nadi-based Dr. Biumaitotoya, who was ordered by the High Court in Lautoka to pay $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 by emailing 144 doctors about potential property receivership and Dr. Sharma’s marital issues, discouraging them from renting the premises.
The case was first filed at the High Court in Lautoka in 2012, and Justice Jude Nanayakkara delivered the ruling on May 7, 2019. Dr. Sharma had requested Dr. Biumaitotoya vacate the premises and filed two cases to recover unpaid rent.
The court ordered Dr. Biumaitotoya to pay $70,000 in general damages within 14 days from May 7, 2019. Dr. Sharma was entitled to six percent simple interest per annum on $70,000 from 2012, amounting to $29,400, and four percent simple interest on $70,000 from the judgment date until full payment. Dr. Sharma could also file further claims under indemnity costs.
Determination: The Court of Appeal examined the email content and determined that it was not defamatory. Justice Temo disagreed with Justice Nanayakkara’s judgment, stating the trial had focused on the truth of the allegations, and justification had been raised too late.
Justice Temo criticized the Court of Appeal, stating they did not engage properly with the email’s content and its attributed meanings. He believed the email was defamatory and that the appeal was wrongly allowed. He noted Dr. Biumaitotoya’s evidence as credible, and Dr. Sharma’s cross-examination responses were evasive.
The court concluded that Dr. Sharma’s actions, such as arranging for a fish shop to open next to Dr. Biumaitotoya’s surgery and welding the surgery door shut, amounted to harassment. Dr. Sharma was identified as a bad landlord due to these actions and entangling his marital problems with his tenant relationship.
Justice Temo granted leave to appeal, dismissed the appeal application, and ordered Dr. Sharma to pay costs to Dr. Biumaitotoya.