The Supreme Court in Suva dismissed an appeal in 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.
Landlord and 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 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, 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 ordering the payment to Dr. Biumaitotoya.
Background
This was an appeal case involving Dr. Biumaitotoya, who had been 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 in 2019.
Dr. Biumaitotoya allegedly defamed his former landlord Dr. Sharma by sending emails to 144 doctors stating that the property might go into receivership and disclosing details of Dr. Sharma’s marital problems, thereby dissuading them from renting the premises.
This matter was first filed in the High Court in Lautoka in 2012, and Justice Jude Nanayakkara delivered his ruling on May 7, 2019.
Dr. Sharma had requested that Dr. Biumaitotoya 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 damages 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), amounting to an additional $29,400. Dr. Sharma was also entitled to four percent simple interest on $70,000 from the date of the judgment until full payment. Additionally, Dr. Sharma could file further claims for indemnity costs.
Determination
The Court of Appeal closely examined the contents of the email and determined the meanings attributed to it. The judgment was broad, considering that the email was not defamatory nor did it address the truth of what was said.
Justice Temo stated that he did not agree with Justice Jude Nanayakkara’s judgment because it did not acknowledge the combined effect of the unconventional statement of claim and the defense statement, which denied the falsity, thus joining the issue of the truth of Dr. Biumaitotoya’s statements.
Secondly, the trial was conducted on the basis that the truth of the allegations was indeed an issue. By the time Justice Nanayakkara delivered his judgment in May 2019, it was too late to argue that justification had not been raised.
“The Court of Appeal judgment did not analyze the email content properly and offered no opinion on its meaning. Its conclusion that it was not defamatory was entirely superficial. Rather than deciding on this basis, it should have closely engaged with the content of Dr. Biumaitotoya’s email, the meanings Dr. Sharma attributed to it, and whether it was defamatory in any event, just based on ordinary language,” said Justice Temo.
“If it had done so, it would or should have concluded that the email was defamatory. In short, the Court of Appeal was wrong to allow the appeal on the basis it did,” Justice Temo mentioned, explaining that words of abuse are not usually taken literally and that Dr. Biumaitotoya’s email was more of a rant and unlikely to be taken literally.
The court preferred Dr. Biumaitotoya’s evidence, noting that many of Dr. Sharma’s answers during cross-examination were evasive. It was evident that Dr. Sharma had arranged for a fish shop to open next to Dr. Biumaitotoya’s surgery, an act the court perceived as direct harassment.
Thirdly, Dr. Biumaitotoya provided such peculiar evidence that Justice Temo found it unlikely he could have fabricated it. This included details about Dr. Sharma’s engagement concerning his wife’s alleged lover, welding shut Dr. Biumaitotoya’s surgery backdoor, and installing a steel barricade.
The evidence about the supposed lover was consistent with a letter from Dr. Biumaitotoya’s lawyers dated June 15, 2011, and the record of calls to his cellphone.
There was no challenge to Dr. Biumaitotoya’s specific evidence about writing to the National Fire Authority, the welding and barricade incident, and the fish shop incident.
Justice Temo concluded that it was evident that Dr. Sharma had instigated these incidents.
The court recognized that while Dr. Biumaitotoya thought he was doing the right thing by paying rent to Dr. Sharma’s wife, he was unwise not to pay his rent to Dr. Sharma. Legally evicting Dr. Biumaitotoya would have been reasonable.
However, the court noted that Dr. Sharma allowing his marital issues to entangle with his tenant-landlord relationship and actions such as placing a fish shop next to Dr. Biumaitotoya’s surgery and welding his surgery door shut, along with the steel barricade, demonstrated that he was a bad landlord.
Justice Temo granted the leave to appeal, dismissed the appeal application, and ordered Dr. Sharma to pay costs to Dr. Biumaitotoya.