Ofi v Lomutopa [2008] PGDC 15; DC657 (11 April 2008)

DC657

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE
SITTING IN ITS CIVIL JURISDICTION]

DCCi 33 of 2008

BETWEEN

PRECILLA OFI
Complainant

AND

ALISON LOMUTOPA
Defendant

Goroka: F MANUE
2008: March 20, 27, April 11

CIVIL - Claims for Damages – Spreading False Rumours – Rumours of having affair – Rumours unsubstantiated – Defence – took complainant by surprise in the purported defence.

Cases Cited
Nil

References
Nil

Counsel
Complainant: In Person
Defendant: In Person

11 April 2008

REASONS FOR DECISION

F Manue: The complainant, Precilla Ofi sues the defendant Alison Lumutopa Nelson for that she spread false rumours on 11 January 2008 saying that she was having an affair with Jacob Ume. She sues for K3, 000.00 and costs.

2. The issue is whether the defendant did spread those reports.

3. Complainant called three (3) witnesses including herself.

4. Evidence by the complainant was that on 11 January 2008 she was in her house at Korofeigu DPI (Division of Primary Industry) with her witnesses Kosa Mavanike. Also there was Mosiko. They were watching a movie on Television when the defendant came calling for her as early as 7:00 am or 8:00 am.

5. They came out of the house where the defendant told the complainant saying – “Yutupla paul ya, olgeta lain long ples save”, including persons like ‘Mekine’ and ‘Luwi’. She further told the complainant that “Yutupla Jacob paul long mounten yah em ol save pinis.”

6. The complainant then told Kosa and Mosiko.

7. Evidence by the complainant also show that she was devastated of the rumours that she cried while telling the rumours to Kosa and Mosiko.

8. She denied that the matter was settled between the parties.

9. When she attempted to find out from the defendant to identify the source of the rumours, the defendant did not corporate.

10. Jacob Ume who was alleged to have had affairs with the complainant was also called to give evidence for the complainant.

11. In his evidence he also denied the claims of having any affair with the complainant. He was also devastated of the rumours and attempted to find out the source of the rumours from the defendant, but his effort was in vain.

12. The defendant called two (2) witnesses which included her own statement. Her affidavit was not admitted, as it had no interpretation clause, given the fact that she is English illiterate. Instead she gave an un sworn statement. Her statement was an ambush to the complainant.

13. She attempted to show the circumstances under which she made the allegation. Her witness also did the same.

14. What was raised by the defence did not come out in cross-examination of the complainant when she took the witness stand.

15. In a civil suit, defences and particulars of defence are to be made known to the other party. This is so, so that the other party, in this case the complainant would have been given an opportunity to explain the allegations or defences raised.

16. In doing that, the degree of what has been alleged can be ascertained as to its truthfulness or otherwise. The defence conducted its case by ambusing the complainant and her case.

17. I will therefore not accept what the defence has raised.

18. On that basis, the only version that this court now accepts is that of the complainant and find that the defendant did spread the reports which were false.

19. The complainant is therefore made out on the balance of probabilities.

20. Assessment of Damages

The complainant has not specifically pleaded as to whether she was claiming damages under custom or by virtue of the Defamation Act. This therefore makes it difficult to asses damages.

21. When assessing damages, I take into consideration the following factors:

• She is a married woman for some thirteen (13) years.
• She is married a policeman, a law enforcing officer and by the standard at any village is a reportable person and therefore a wife of a reportable person.
• She suffered pain, and embarrassment when she heard of the rumours being made and circulated orally.
• On the occasion of 14 January 2008, she cried before those with her.
  

22. I consider one thousand five hundred kina as appropriate compensation with costs.

23. Order

Judgment entered for the complainant in the sum of K1, 500.00 plus costs and that the payment be made within three (3) months in default redress.

Complainant: In Person
Defendant: In Person