Parapolo v Solomon Star Ltd [2016] SBHC 66; HCSI-CC 08 of 2013 (19 May 2016)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
Civil Jurisdiction
(Maina J)

Civil Case No. 08 of 2013

BETWEEN:

BARTHOLOMEW PARAPOLO
Claimant

AND:

SOLOMON STAR LIMITED
First Defendant

AND:

JOHNLEY HATIMOANA
Second Defendant

Date of Judgment: 19^th May 2016

Ms L. Ramo for the Claimant
Mr G. Fa’aitoa for the Second Defendant

JUDGMENT

Maina J:

Introduction

The Claimant filed a claim claiming damages against the first and second Defendants for Defamation and includes what the Claimant calls compensatory, aggravated, punitive and exemplary damages with interest and costs.

The Brief Facts

The Claimant and the Second Defendant were candidates in the bye election for the Gela Constituency which was held in earlier 2013. The Claimant was, and still is a businessman who runs two businesses under the names Mobile Electrics and Tulagi Holiday Inn. The second Defendant (now deceased) was an employee of the Solomon Islands Teachers Association (SINTA). And the First Defendant was, and still is, company that owns a newspaper business known as Solomon Star.

On or about 1^st December 2012 a letter was written by the second Defendant appeared in the “letters to Editor” column of the Solomon Star newspaper. The title of the letter was “Where’s the $3.1m for Gela?”

The Claimant’s Claim for Defamation

The Claimant in his claim complained that the following statements contained in the letter in issue were defamatory-

1. Interestingly enough, there other $1 million allocation for Central Province in 2011 and 2012 is evidently received by the General Manger of Mobile Electrics (Bartholomew Parapolo);
   
2. The Central Province Tourism Project allocations, the General Manager of Mobile Electrics applied for $500,00 of which he received;

3. The 2012 Central Province Tourism Project allocation was also allocated to the same person the General Manager of Mobile Electrics;
   
4. How long are we going to allow these greedy, selfish and corrupt leaders continue with such unwelcome practices?
   

The Claimant claims that the statements were false and in the ordinary meaning suggested or were understood to mean:

1. That the Claimant fraudulently obtained the sum of $500,000 from the Central Province in 2011;
   
2. The Claimant fraudulently obtained the sum of $500,000 from the Central Province in 2012;
   
3. The Claimant’s businesses Mobile Electrics and Tulagi Holiday Inn survived purely on funds fraudulently obtained by the Claimant;
   
4. The Claimant is a greedy, selfish and corrupt person therefore unfit to become a leader.
   

The Claimant alleges in his sworn statement filed on 5^th June 2013 that he believed the defamatory statements contained in the article severely injured his reputation resulting in his loss in the bye election of Gela Constituency. He has suffered and continues to suffer damages to his reputation.

Undisputed Facts

The First Defendant in its Solomon Star newspaper on or about 1^st December 2012 published in the letters to Editor Column a letter written by the Second Defendant and the title of the letter was “Where’s the $3.1m for Gela?”

The Claimant and Second Defendant were candidates in the bye election for the Gela constituency in 2013 which was won by Second Defendant now deceased.

The Claimant in the 2014 General Election contested the election won and currently the MP for Gela Constituency.

Defendants Denies the Claim

The First Defendant admits to publishing the article containing the words complained of by the Claimant. But denies the article was or the parts containing the words complained of were defamatory.

The Law on Libel

Stephen Ofei - the learned author of Law of Tort in the South Pacific-Suva Fiji, IJALS-USP, 1997 at pages 304 and 305 defines “defamatory statement” as a defamatory statement may be defined as on which tends:

(i) to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right thinking members of society general: (Sim v Stretch [1939] All ER at 1240 per Lord Atkin) or

(ii) to cause others to shun or avoid him or

(iii) to expose him to hatred, contempt or ridicule: (Parmiter v Coupland [1840] EngR 168; (1840) 6 M&W 105 at 108 per Parke B) or

(iv) to discrete him to hatred in his office, trade or profession: Lomas v Caine (1980) 26 Fiji LR 108 per Kermode J) or

(v) to injure his financial credit (Manu v Haidas & Editor of Tonga Chroncile Civil Case No. 57/1988 per Webster).

The words complained of must tend to injure the plaintiffs’ reputation in the minds of right-thing people generally, not merely in the minds of a particular section of the public. A statement that injures the plaintiff’s reputation in the eyes of a very limited section in the community is not defamatory (Byre v Deane [1937] 1 KB 818.

And in this jurisdiction his Lordship Sir Albert Palmer CJ in the case Wale v Philip and Others HC- CC 42 of 2011 [Unreported] outlines the law on libel as follows:

“The gist of the torts of libel and slander is the publication of matter (usually words) conveying a defamatory imputation - Gatley on Libel and Slander, 10^th ed., paragraph 2.1 [1]. No action can be maintained for libel or slander unless the words complained of have been published. There must be a communication to a third party.

In determining whether words are defamatory there are two stages, first to what it means, and then to decide whether it is defamatory.

A defamatory imputation has been defined as one to the Claimant's discredit - Definition preferred by Scrutton L.J. in Youssoupoff v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (1934) 50 T.L.R. 581 at 584 [2], or which tends to lower him in the estimation of others -Gatley on Libel and Slander (ibid) para. 2.7 [3], or causes him to be shunned or avoided - Ibid para. 2.6 [4], or exposed him to hatred contempt or ridicule -Ibid para. 2.2[5]. Another definition has been provided by the American Law Institute in the Second Restatement of Torts as:

"a statement is defamatory if it tends to harm the reputation of another so as to lower him or her in the estimation of the community or to deter third parties from associating or dealing with him or her."

To be defamatory, an imputation must tend to lower the Claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally”.

The Issues:

1. Whether all the Defendants were all responsible for the publication or caused to be published the article complained of; and
   
2. Whether the words complained of have brought the Claimant into disrepute in the community so as to bring discredit to his name, office, trade and profession whether they caused others to hate or ridicule him or hold him in contempt, and whether they have caused others to shun or avoid him.

The content of the claim by the Claimant need to be examined as there seems a defects in the Claim filed by the Claimant on 22^nd January 2013. Clause 4 of the claim states:

“On 1^st December 2012, the First Defendant published or causes to be published in the paper’s issue no. 5030 at page 6 an article authorised by the second Defendant styled, where’s the $3.1m for Gela? which contained defamatory statement against the Defendant...”

And in Clause 4, line 3 of the claimant’s claim as quoted above stated that the First Defendant publishes defamatory statement against the Defendants. By that and or in the claim it was not against Claimant but against Defendants. Simply that would not be defamatory by and standard.

It may be the Claimant’s pleading erroneous but that has not been amended, and up to now Claimant has not sought any leave to amend that error in the claim.

Issue 1

The First Defendant admits to publishing the article containing the words complained of in the Solomon Star Newspaper and it was written and authorised by the Second Defendant.

I hold that the First Defendant and Second Defendant were all responsible for the publication or caused to be published the article complained off.

Issue 2

At the time when the First Defendant published the article the Claimant and Second Defendant were candidates for MPs for the Gela Constituency at the bye election and the article concerns public interest as it relates to a Government fund.

The First Defendant denies that the article was or the parts containing the words complained of were defamatory and said that the words were true in substance and fact.

There are two matters in this issue, the words are capable of bearing a meaning defamatory of the Claimant and if it is so whether the words complained of did in fact bear a meaning defamatory of the Claimant.

The First Defendant said the Claimant had not denied that he received the alleged monies for 2011 and 2012 from the Central Province Tourism Grant. And there is no evidence before the court from the Claimant to prove that he did not receive SBD$1m for his two businesses.

The article mentioned the Claimant who is General Manger of Mobile Electrics and had received the Government fund allocations for Central Province in 2011 and 2012.

He was mentioned or singled out as one who had received tourism grant allocation for Central Province. In the context of the words it may or would cause dislike of the Claimant in the bye election circles.

I hold the words are capable of bearing a meaning defamatory of the Claimant and calculated to injure the Claimant at the campaign in the bye election. The Claimant may entitle to damages save the Defendant can succeed or show to the court on his defences of fair comment and justification.

The defence of fair comment must be based on facts truly stated. The comment must not contain imputations of corrupt or dishonourable motives on the person whose conduct or work is criticised save in so far as such imputations are warranted by the facts. The comment must also be the honest expression of the persons making the comment.

And a plea of justification is that all the words are true and covers not only the bare statements of facts in the alleged libel but also any imputations which the words in their context may be taken to convey.

In pleas of both fair comment and justification, the burden of establishing the defence is on the Defendant.

The words or texts in the article complained of by the Claimant as defamatory statements and his suggested meaning or were understood to mean are as stated earlier in the facts.

If the Defendant establishes that the words about the complainant are true in substance, would be fair comment on a matter of public interest and he would succeed on his defence of fair comment and justification.

First Defendant Defence

Counsel Fa’aitoa for the First Defendant submitted that the words in the article in the ordinary and natural meaning are quite straight forward and easy to understand. The published text as per ordinary and natural meaning means that the General Manager of Mobile Electrics, Claimant Bartholomew Parapolo received $1 million (of Government) previously allocated for Central Province Tourism Development Projects. The published text further suggested that the fund received by Mr. Parapolo comprised allocation to the Central Province for 2011 and 2012.

Mr. Fa’aitoa submitted that there was no mention in the published text or the Claimants’ version in the claim of a $500,000 obtained by the Claimant in 2011. There was also not a word in the text version suggesting fraud on the Claimant’s part of obtaining $500,000 or any amount for that matter. It is rather an unambiguous assertion about the Claimants receiving a large sum of Government fund ($1 million) allocated to the Central Province for tourism development projects. There was nothing sinister alleged in the published text how the Claimant received the money.

Mr. Fa’aitoa further submitted that there was no evidence tendered by the Claimant to show that he in fact didn’t receive the monies as alleged in the published article and he did deny receiving those monies. And therefore the words in the text as published were true in substance and in facts.

The Court

In brief the evidences adduced by the Claimant to support his claim is in his own statement filed on 5^th June 2013 which states that he believed the defamatory statements contained in the article severely injured his reputation resulting in his loss in the bye election of Gela Constituency.

And beside that he did not tendered any evidence to show that he in fact didn’t receive the monies as alleged in the published article and he did not deny receiving those monies. With the loss at the bye election there is no evidence to support and event to suggest that claim.

The Defendants in the submission sought to establish their defences that words in the text as published were true in substance and in facts. The Claimant’s businesses or under the name of Mobile Electrics and Tulagi Holiday Inn received in 2011 and 2012 the monies of the Tourism grant from the Central Province.

It is not disputed that the Claimant is the Manager of Mobile Electrics and he did not deny receiving those monies which the Government previously allocated for Central Province Tourism Development Projects.

This defence and the context of words is not challenge with evidences. Claimant just as he said that he believes the statements were defamatory and injured his reputation resulting in his loss in the bye election.

I am reluctant to agree with the Claimant’s suggested meaning of the text in the article. There are no words used to describe that Claimant fraudulently or businesses survived purely on fraudulently funds obtained by the Claimant except the raising of the unambiguous assertion about the Claimant receiving monies of Government funds and the Claimant was not able or capable to deny receiving it.

The words in the article in the ordinary and natural meaning are quite straight forward and easy to understand and does mean as the Claimant is trying to suggest to the court or remix to be understood to mean as stated in the claim.

With the statements complained of on “How long are we going to allow these greedy, selfish and corrupt leaders continue with such unwelcome practices?” There is no evidence to suggest that the Claimant was a leader at the material time and no evidence to suggest that he was a leader in business or any other trade or profession. The leaders in the published text are plural, not singular.

With the publication that may causes the Claimant to be shun or avoided or did people discredit him or lower estimation others, it is my view that it was not so and with following reasons:

1. No evidence to suggest the Claimant lost the bye election was due the First Defendant’s publication,
   
2. No evidence to prove that good majority of Gela voters read the publication containing the words complained of prior to the bye election,
   
3. No evidence at all to prove that a lot of people of Gela read the publication,
   
4. No evidence to prove that the Defendant’s publication has a wide circulation in Gela Constituency;
   
5. The Claimant won National Election a year later in 2014.
   

The First Defendant’s publication of the words complained of cannot be calculated to have effect on the Claimant as or simply there is no evidence to support the words complained of. The Claimant fails to provide or disclose evidences that from the article, the people have shunned or avoided the Claimant, hated ridiculed, discredited or lowered him in the estimation of others.

Taking into account the evidences and defamatory by and standard and or with no evidence to support the claim it is my view that the Claimant was not defamed by the article published by the First Defendant on 1^st December 2012.

ORDER

1. The Claim is dismissed
   
2. Cost is awarded to the First Defendant
   

THE COURT

Justice Leonard R Maina
Puisne Judge