Sore v Tradewinds Investment Ltd [2017] SBHC 51; HCSI-CC 512 of 2015 (4 December 2017)

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

Civil Case No. 512 of 2015

BETWEEN: RENCE SORE - Claimant

(Special Secretary to the Prime Minister)
AND: TRADEWINDS INVESTMENT LIMITED - First Defendant
(Trading as Island Sun News Paper)

AND: PHILIP LILOMO - Second Defendant
(Journalist and employee of Island Sun
Newspaper and writer of articles subject of
Proceeding)

AND: PRIESTLEY HABRU - Third Defendant
(Editor and Director of Island Sun Newspaper)

Date of Ruling: 4^th December 2017

Mr. Kesaka K for the Claimant
Mr. Balea S for the Defendants

JUDGMENT

Maina PJ:

Introduction

A claim in defamation by the Claimant alleging that 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd Defendants had published the articles on the 17^th September 2015 and 22^nd of September 2015 in the Islands Sun Newspaper that defamed him or the articles were defamatory.

Brief Facts

The Claimant was a Special Secretary to the Prime Minister of Solomon Islands until he was removed from the post.

The First, Second and Third Defendants were responsible for the publication of two newspaper articles in their Islands Sun Newspapers, article dated and published on the 17^th September 2015 was titled “SSPM owes taxpayers $108,000.... Gives order to cease transport allowance” and article dated and published on the 22^nd of September 2015 “PM Best Choice”.
It alleged the Claimant used Rock Haven Inn accommodation for his private time and life that nothing to do with Government at the cost of the tax payers of Solomon Islands.

Issue

The issue is whether or not the two articles published on 17^th September 2015 and 22^nd of September 2015 are defamatory of the Claimant?

The Law on Defamation

Generally, Defamation is a statement which tends to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right thinking members of society general or, cause others to shun or avoid him or, expose him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or discrete him to hatred in his office, trade, or profession and or injure his financial credit. (Stephen Ofei - the learned author of Law of Tort in the South Pacific-Suva Fiji, IJALS-USP, 1997 at pages 304 and 305)

For the purpose I would like to quote the statement I made in the case Parapolo v Solomon Star Ltd [2016] SBHC 66; HCSI-CC 08 of 2013 (19 May 2016):

“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”.

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 when he stated:

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

For the Claimant it is on tend to discrete him in his office, trade or profession in the Prime Minister’s office. And the onus is on him to establish the right-thinking members of public who read the article would think so with evidences in order to succeed with his claim.

It is not in dispute that the articles were published and on 17^th September 2015 with the followings:

“SSPM OWES TAXPAYERS $108,000.00......GIVES ORDER TO CEASE TRANSPORT ALLOWANCE.
.........................................

This was after this paper exposed Mr Sore’s double-dipping activity, enjoying a $12,000 a month transport allowance while in possession of a Government hired vehicle.

In an email to public servants working at the PMO, Mr Sore vented his anger at this paper’s revelation that he was both using a SIG Hilux G3471 while at the same time cashing his transport allowance of $12,000 per month, up to when it was finally ceased by PMO.

In his email at 8.24am in the morning of Friday 21 August which was cited by this paper, Mr Sore made the following directives:

Remove my vehicle allowance from my fortnight salary with immediate effect.

Disallow office staff (PMO officials) to use G3741 for official use.......................”

The Claimant described the articles as misleading, false, not true and, that it was published maliciously without verifying the extent of the truth or otherwise of the material relied on for the said news article. If someone was providing material to the first, second and third defendants, those material are not true. He is certain that in the eyes of the reasonable reader of the article, that article clearly is very defamatory of his character.

The Claimant said the article in its entirety portrays him using a Government Vehicle and at the same time being paid a monthly vehicle allowance of $12,000 per month or $6,000 per fortnight for 9 months or 18 fortnights equivalent to the value of a $108,000.

The Claimant said the article on the 17^th September 2015 is not true.

He filed his sworn statement on 5^th November 2015 with or annexures or exhibits of his pay slips for the period from 13^th February 2015 – 26^th February 2015 to 11^th September 2015 – 24^th September 2015 which should have the right information on the matters or issues raised against the Claimant. I checked or viewed them and noted from the pay slips that he was paid vehicle allowances of $6000.00 fortnight from the period 24^th April 2015 – 7^th May 2015 to 31^st July 2015 – 13^th August 2015. The total amount was $48,000.00 for transport allowances but there appear to be no payments that would suggest the Claimant had drawn the alleged allowances or $108,000.00. Whether or otherwise any different method of payment for that alleged allowances was or the Defendants do not provide any evidences for that other method. For the transport allowance it is under the term of his contract.

The Claimant was not allocated a Government vehicle as confirmed by the Permanent of Ministry of Infrastructure Development by the letter of 19^th October 2015. However the subject vehicle was for the Administration Division of the PMO which the Claimant was entitled to use on official matters and time.

On 22^nd September 2015 the Defendants published another article entitled “PM BEST CHOICE” ..................................

“FROM TRANSPORT ALLOWANCE TO HOUSING ALLOWANCE: SSPM TENDENCY TO BILL TAX PAYERS GOES UNABATED”

The Claimant again said that the article carry with it, statements which is not true but the statement in its ordinary meaning is capable of ascribing a meaning that is defamatory of the character of the claimant in the eyes of a reasonable reader of the article.

The relevant excerpts of the article and editorial he said defamed his character is a follows:

“It is only nine months since Mr. Sore was appointed to be the SSPM and it seems that his propensity to double dipping goes on unabated and is on the increase (paragraph 3).

Take for instance his decision to bill the tax payers of Solomon Islands $14,850 for using Apartment 52 at Rock Haven Inn (formerly Quality Inn) for a total of 27 nights while he receives $10,000 per month in Housing Allowances under his contract (paragraph 4)

Mr. Sore checked in as a private guest on 2 July this year. He checked out on 29 July (paragraph 5).

Rock Haven rightfully entered his name on the Customer Details entry because he checked in as a private individual, documents obtained revealed (paragraph 6)

We have an SSPM here who has a high propensity to cost tax payers of SI for activities or things he does in his private time and life that has nothing to do with the government (paragraph 16).

But it appears Mr. Sore is not interested in giving sound advice to the PM and DCC Government (paragraph 21).

He spends most of his time looking for opportunities to bill tax payers for his expensive life-styles and misuse his position (paragraph 22)”.

This article of 22^nd September 2015 was described in a press statement by Secretary to the Prime Minister (SPM) Mr Joseph Waleanisia as absolutely not true (exhibited RS 5). In that press statement it states that the decision to book and have temporarily lodge in the Inn was in accordance his decision as SPM and the booking was not privately done by the Claimant but by EPS to SPM. And the payment of bill was also authorized by the SPM.

Ms Sonya Haáoto formerly EPS to the Secretary to the Prime Minister Mr Joseph Waleanisia in the sworn statement filed on 8^th February 2017 confirmed that she was instructed by SPM to arrange the accommodation booking for the Claimant at the Rock Haven Inn on 2^nd July 2015 and the Claimant took up accommodation as arranged by her.

The Claimant was named in the newspaper and the position he held in the Prime Minister’s office as Special Secretary to the Prime Minister and referred to as “SSPM”.

The Court

The attack on the Claimant were quite malicious one.

He was accused of using Government money value of $108, 000.00 which he was not entitled for that money as he was allocated a Government Vehicle and should not be paid vehicle allowance. He was also accused of incurring expense unnecessarily at the expense of taxpayer’s money when he used the room at the motel for his own personal use.

The evidences from the Claimant is quite plain or clear and as a fact the words are defamatory of the claimant and computed or calculated to injure claimant in his position and profession as SSPM.

The Claimant is entitled to damages or the orders to punish the Defendants unless they can succeed on his defences of fair comments and justifications.

As well stated in many cases in this jurisdiction, for the plea of fair comment the facts must be truly stated (Sikua v Tradewinds Investment Company Ltd [2010] SBHC 95; HCSI-CC 138 of 2009 (20 July 2010)). To be defence it must be based on facts truly stated. For both fair comment and justification, the burden of establishing the defences is on the Defendant (Parapolo v Solomon Star Ltd [2016] SBHC 66; HCSI-CC 08 of 2013 (19 May 2016))

In the defence filed on 30^th October 2015, the Defendants admitted that they published the articles and the editorials but deny or pleaded therein as not defamatory and the Claimant is put to strict proof thereof. The Defendant said that the Claimant is a public officer and his actions and behaviours are of public concern and interest, person assuming of such capacity is subject to public scrutiny from time to time. The Defendant said incident as described in the said articles and editorials are true, in the public interest, fair comments and not malicious.

The Defence also stated the articles on motel accommodation was published without malice and despite being authorised by the Secretary to the Prime Minister the fact is that the public fund was being used to pay for the accommodation. The Claimant should do his official work in the office than in the motel which the public fund was to be used to pay for the bill.

Beside the response to the accommodation issue the Defendants admitted the excerpts of the articles and editorials according to them is based on honest opinion and fair comment.

The headlines of the articles are directly on the claimant and by looking at, it suggest to any ordinary person that the claimant by his conduct earned the money is not entitled to. It is not an honest opinion and fair comment as claimed by the Defendants in the defence. It is so on the fact that they did not have the story or comments from the Claimant or the office of the Prime Minister on the matter. Whether you may be unable to get rely for the Claimant or officials from the PM office would not make your opinion and comment as honest and fair, unless you can provide evidences to your allegation. With this it not so and for the defence to shift or the claimant is put to strict proof thereof because of the public interest is not within adversarial system unless the law provides for such.

The defences of fair comments and justifications is none or not accepted and I find all the Defendants are liable for defamation.

Damages

The Defendants are liable and my task now is to assess the damages to be awarded to the Plaintiff. In all respect the damage must be adequate compensation to the Plaintiff. It should be fair in the circumstance of the case and an award is appropriate in the situation of Solomon Islands.

The evidences before the court were considered and all was taken into account in the judgment. Having noted the awards in other cases in this jurisdiction, it is my view that the proper award of damages which the defendants should pay to the claimant is $2,000.00 each.

ORDERS

1. The 1^st, 2nd and 3^rd Defendants to pay of the sum of $2,000.00 each to the Claimant/Plaintiff,
   
2. Cost is awarded to the Claimant.
   

THE COURT

......................................................
Justice Leonard R Maina
Puisne Judge