Tinunuke v Beseo [2017] PGDC 24; DC3031 (14 July 2017)

DC3031
PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE

SITTING IN ITS CIVIL COURT JURISDICTION]

DCCi: 34of 2017

BETWEEN

OSI TINUNUKE

Complainant

AND

ESKY BESEO

Defendant

Goroka: R. APPA, PM

2017: June 20
July 14
CIVIL –

Cases Cited:
Nil

References:
Nil

Counsels:
Nil

14^thJuly, 2017

-2-

DECISIONOF THE COURT

R. APPA, PM: This is a defamation case. The complainant claims that on the 26^th November 2015 at Kainantu town inside the house of Vincent Suvi the defendant made some defamatory statements about the complainant which tarnished his name and character in the community. Words like:-

1. The complainant was the most hated person in the whole of Aiamontena community and people have no trust and respect for him.
2. The complainant was a womanizer in the community, even in Kae’s family.
3. Many deaths in Kae’s family was caused by the complainant so Vincent Suvi must be careful when negotiating any favors with Osi.
4. Vincent Suvi and Osi have negotiated to convince Bemunke Timothy (Mrs.) to hand over the land and easily support Vincent Suvi if any land dispute arises.
   

2. The complainant further claimed that those defamatory statements were made in the presence of Vincent Suvi, Nare Vincent, Julianne, Tedu Steven and Ke’eMakam and others in Vincent’s house. Vincent Suvi then noted down and reported to the complainant.

3. When the complaint was put to the defendant, he admitted making some of those statements but based on the truth. Defence truth was raised.

4. Case went for trial. It was revealed during trial that parties appeared before their Village Court over same complaint in which the Village Court had ordered the defendant to pay K1, 000.00 to the complainant but he appealed that decision and the Kainantu District Court quashed the decision and directed the complainant to start fresh proceedings in the District Court which was done and the case was transferred to Goroka District Court.

5. Both parties have tendered their respective affidavits and their witnesses and were admitted. No cross examination by consent.

6. Court had considered the evidence and was satisfied that there was defamation. There was no justification for the defendant to use those words complained of. The complainant was already dealt with for whatever wrongs he committed. What defendant said about the conducts of the complainant was defamatory by definition under the Defamation Act, section 2 – 4. The Village Court also found that the defendant said about the complainant was wrong. This court followed suit.

7. On compensation, there is no limit set out under the Defamation Act. It was left at the discretion of the court. In this case, complainant asked for K7, 000.00 in damage.

-3-

8. It is often difficult to assess damage done to reputation or character of the defamed person. There has to be evidence shown on extend of damage caused. How many people heard the defamatory words spoken and how they assessed. In this case, there were over five people heard those words quoted above.
9. The complainant also provided evidence on his good standing in the community and his involvement in public relations and law and order.

10. From my experiences in dealing with this nature of defamation cases and from precedent National Court cases, I assessed damage at K1, 000.00 as reasonable.

11. On cost, both parties had requested adjournments as shown on court records so were scored off but defendant owed only one adjournment in relation to PMV fares – Kainantu – Goroka – Kainantu (K20.00). Complainant is entitled to cost of typing of court documents, estimated at K150.00.

12. Orders: The defendant is ordered to pay the complainant K1, 170.00 payable within one month from today 14^th July 2017.

Dated this 14^th July 2017 at Goroka

Counsels:
Nil