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.
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 for the judgment. Dr. Sharma had previously sued Dr. Biumaitotoya for defamation in 2012, resulting in a High Court in Lautoka order in 2019 directing Dr. Biumaitotoya to pay $70,000 to Dr. Sharma.
Dr. Biumaitotoya’s solicitor, Anil Singh, challenged this ruling and filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal in Suva, which was granted. Dr. Sharma subsequently 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 the payment to Dr. Biumaitotoya.
Background
This case began with the High Court in Lautoka ordering Dr. Biumaitotoya to pay $70,000 in general damages and $29,400 in interest for defaming Dr. Sharma through an email in 2019. Dr. Biumaitotoya had allegedly sent emails to 144 doctors with statements about Dr. Sharma’s property potentially going into receivership and details of his marital problems, dissuading them from renting the premises.
Initially filed at the High Court in Lautoka in 2012, Justice Jude Nanayakkara delivered the ruling on May 7, 2019. Dr. Sharma had also filed two cases to recover unpaid rent from Dr. Biumaitotoya.
The court ordered Dr. Biumaitotoya to pay $70,000 in damages within 14 days from May 7, 2019, with an entitlement to six percent simple interest per annum on $70,000 from the date of filing in 2012, amounting to an additional $29,400. Dr. Sharma could also claim further indemnity costs.
Determination
The Court of Appeal examined the contents of the email and the meanings attributed to it. Justice Temo disagreed with Justice Nanayakkara’s judgment, noting that the latter did not recognize the combined effect of the statement of claim, which indicated the defamatory meanings were false, and the defense, which denied the falsity. The appeal court concluded that the email was not defamatory, a judgment Justice Temo found insufficiently analyzed.
Justice Temo believed that had the Court of Appeal closely examined the email, it would have concluded it was defamatory. Dr. Biumaitotoya’s evidence was given more weight due to Dr. Sharma’s evasive answers during cross-examination and incidents implying harassment.
Thirdly, Dr. Biumaitotoya’s strange but consistent testimony regarding Dr. Sharma’s actions against him was believed. Instances included claims about Dr. Sharma’s wife’s supposed lover, welding shut Dr. Biumaitotoya’s surgery backdoor, and setting up a fish shop next to the surgery.
Justice Temo inferred that these incidents were instigated by Dr. Sharma. While Dr. Biumaitotoya only paid rent to Dr. Sharma’s wife, and not directly to Dr. Sharma, his eviction through legal means would have been more appropriate.
The court found Dr. Sharma’s actions, linking his marital issues with the tenant-landlord relationship, as evidence of poor landlord conduct. Justice Temo granted the leave to appeal, dismissed the appeal application, and ordered Dr. Sharma to pay costs to Dr. Biumaitotoya.