Guria v Daur [2017] PGDC 35; DC4013 (6 October 2017)

DC 2 of 2017

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE

SITTING IN ITS CIVIL JURISDICTION]

GR5 No 2 of 2017
BETWEEN

DANIEL GURIA
Complainant

AND

DUAS DAUR
Defendant

MADANG: JOSEPHINE KILAGE

2017: 6 OCTOBER
    

CIVIL- Defamation Proceedings

Cases Cited
None Cited

References
District Courts Act
Defamation Act

Counsel

Complainant in person
Defendant in person

GFC No2 of 2017

J.Kilage: This is a Grade 5 case which was transferred to the Grade 4 civil jurisdiction after the Complainant (Mr Guria) made an oral application to do so. Mr Guria made the application to transfer the file due to the case being prolonged and he also reduced the amount claimed to K8000.00. The application was granted and the matter proceeding to trial.

Mr Guria in his summons dated 15^th March 2017 claimed that the Defendant (Mrs Daur) had argued with him over a portion of land and mentioned or defamed him by saying the words “ you con man, you stole and are here, you steal” (yu con man, yupela steal na yupela stap, yupela steal”. ) He said those words affected his reputation being a community leader and made a claim for K10,000.00 which was later reduced to K8000.00. His wife came as a witness and said the same.

Mrs Daur said they did argue but she never called him a con man or a thief. Her witnesses which included her husband and his work college also supported her but they gave different versions concerning where they were when Mr Guria and Mrs Daur argued.

The argument was in relation to a waste land upon which Mr Guria and his family had been residing on for the last ten years alone until Mrs Daur and her husband moved in. Mr Daur is an employee of the Department of Agriculture and Livestock. The land is purported to be waste land belonging to State Land known as Portion 109.

Issue- Whether the words were uttered and are in breach of Section 3 of the Defamation Act.

Law- Relevant Sections are Section 2, 3 and 4 of the Defamation Act.

Section 2 defines defamatory matter as being an imputation concerning a person, or a member of his family,whether living or dead, by which-

(a) The reputation of that person is likely to be injured; or
(b) He is likely to be injured in his profession or trade; or
(c) Other persons are likely to be induced to shun, avoid, ridicule or despise him,

is a defamatory imputation.

Section 3(a) states that a person who by spoken words or audible sounds publishes a defamatory imputation concerning a person defames that person within the meaning of this Act.

Section 4 of states for the purposes of this Act , a publication is in the case of spoken words or audible sounds, the speaking of those sounds in the presence and hearing of a person other than the person defamed.

In this case the words do fall in the meaning of Section 2 of the Act. The issue here is does the alleged act fulfil the requirements of Section 3 and 4 of the Act? Where the words spoken in front of someone and heard by someone else? His wife was present and confirms the statement. The defendant and her husband and an independent witness deny the statement. In this case the wife cannot be classified as an independent witness and the court now looks at the evidence of the last witness.

The evidence before the court is inconclusive. Both Mr Guria and his wife say the words were spoken. Both Mrs Daugl and her husband said she did not say this. The only independent witness said these words were not spoken. All agreed that an argument did arise from Mr Guria stopping Mr Daugl and his colleague and a PNG Power officer from placing a post to connect power. Evidence in court showed that the only independent witness states that these words were not uttered.

In order to determine whether her words are defamatory or not is a question of law. Mr Guria has not provided an independent witness to support his allegations. There is not enough evidence to prove his claim. He has not satisfied Section 3(a) of the Defamation Act to prove that the words were said.

I therefore make the following orders:

1. The case is dismissed.
2. Each party will bear their own costs.

Given by my hand

Josephine Kilage
Presiding Magistrate