Yanopa v Korowaro [2017] PGDC 30; DC3026 (24 February 2017)

DC3026
PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE

SITTING IN ITS GRADE FIVE CIVIL COURT JURISDICTION]

GFCi: 100of 2016

BETWEEN

STEVE BIMAI YANOPA

Applicant/ Defendant

AND

SHARON KOROWARO

Respondent/Complainant

Goroka: R. APPA, PM

2016: December 22

2017: January 13

CIVIL –

Cases Cited:
Nil

References:
Nil

Counsels:
Nil

24^thFebruary, 2017

-2-

DECISION

R. APPA, PM: There is enough evidence to make out defamation case. The law Defamation Act s. 4 says the person defamed does not have to be present to hear what was spoken.

2. In the case, defendant started argument and accused Lumcy Yanopa – the adopted daughter of complainant of having secret love affairs with the complainant. This was in presence of Lumcy and other people who heard it. Lumcy then called complainant and reported what was said about him and Lumcy.

3. The same accusation was heard by Getrude in Daru.

4. In defence – defendant admitted having argument with Jumcy about what she heard from other people but claimed that complainant was in Goroka and not present to hear what was said. That defence was already clarified by s. 4 of the Defamation Act.

5. Defendant crashed through the gate – kalapimbanis. She should have gone through lawful means to find out for herself – e.g. through medical checks and medical report what sickness Lumcy had passed onto her engaged friend – son of defendant. Same medical report on what caused her son to lose weight.

6. Defendant jumped the gun. No proof on what defendant said about Lumcy and complainant as defence. There was no doubt complainant was defamed who holds high position and reputation in church, public office and communities.

7. Claim is for K10, 000.00. Can the defendant afford this?

8. Awards depend of extend of damage – extend of publication. Differences between oral publication and circulation of written defamation. Written publication goes far and wide. Oral is within limited people. No wider publication.

9. In Theresa Joan Baher –v- Lae Printing Ltd (1970) – there was written publication so National Court awarded K6, 000.00. In Wayane Cross –v-Wes Zuidema (1987) – K4, 000.00 was awarded for circulating defamatory letters to government departments. In Kamea Gabe –v- Jack Clum and Pacific Gold Studio Ltd K10, 000.00 was awarded for publishing 1, 500 copies of cassettes implicating complainant for womanizing.

10. In present case, words spoken was heard by Lumcy and few other people who were at the scene. It was also reported to complainant.

11. Awarded K4, 000.00 as reasonable compensation.

Counsels:
Nil