HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
Case name: 	Bodo Dettke v Donation Damikura 	
		
Citation:		
		
Date of decision: 	15 May 2018	
		
Parties: 	Heinz Horst Bodo Dettke v Donation Damikura, SLH Timber Corporation Limited, Solomon Islands Broadcasting, Kikiva Tuni	
		
Date of hearing: 	23 February 2018	
		
Court file number(s): 	402 of 2015	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Civil	
		
Place of delivery: 	HCSI-Court Room One 	
		
Judge(s): 	Faukona; PJ	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	1. All the Defendant to pay $160,000.00 as general damages to the claimant.
2. The 3rd and 4th Defendant to pay $15,000.00 each as aggravated damages to the Claimant. Total damages payable to the Claimant are $190.000.00	
	3. Costs be payable to the Claimant 
	
Representation: 	Mr. G. Suri for the Claimant 	
	Mr. Rose for the First Defendant
Mr. A. Radclyffe for the third and fourth Defendant 	
Catchwords: 		
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:		
		
Cases cited:	PNG Aviation Pty Ltd V Somare, Goh v Yam, Sikua and Manele V Trade Winds Investment Company Ltd and Others, Wale v Solomon Star, Dettke v Trade Winds Investment Company Ltd, International Comtrade v Solomon Star,	

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 402 of 2015

HEINZ HORST BODO DETTKE 
Claimant

v

DONATION DAMIKURA 
First Defendant 

SLH TIMBER CORPORATION LIMITED 
Second Defendant

SOLOMON ISLANDS BROADCASTING CORPORATION 
Third Defendant 

KIKIVA TUNI 
Fourth Defendant
Date of Hearing; 23 February 2018
Date of Assessment; 15 May 2018

Mr. G. Suri for the Claimant 
Mr. Rose for the First Defendant
Mr. A. Radclyffe for the third and fourth Defendant
JUDGMENT ON ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES
Faukona PJ: On 19th September 2017, this Court pronounced its judgment awarding general damages against all the Defendants and aggravating damages against the third and fifth Defendants. The liability in the awards of damages should be payable to the Claimant.
2.	The notion of libel is all about status and reputation. Action for libel and slander are maintained for the purposes of protecting and vindicating personal reputation and defamed Claimant. Often reputation is considered as precious and valuable, its loss or demeaned is treated in law as violation of an absolute right. Of course, some damages will flow in the ordinary course of things from the invasion of the plaintiff’s rights.
3.	The purpose of damage is to restore the plaintiff for the decline in his esteem which he may be held by others, and provide solace for his wounded feelings, grief, annoyance and shame, see PNG Aviation Pty Ltd V Somare.
4.	Only in exceptional cases that damage is to punish the defendant. However, Court is allowed to consider pecuniary losses and social disadvantages see also Goh V Yam (1993) SBHC 43, HCSI – CC 154 of 1989. Other circumstance where punitive or exemplary damages may be awarded is where the Defendant profited from his wrong doing.
	General damages:
5.	I find the statements complained of were manufactured and subsequently published and down loaded by the Defendants. It was a cooperative contributory which contain libellous elements, which defame the esteem of the Claimant as a national leader, MP, Minister of the Crown and a well-known businessman in Solomon Islands.
6.	A person of such high status and character ought to be respected and deserves recognition. General public who read the news items in the new papers and the website will pass judgment and condemn the Claimant for the alleged actions. Those who know him will think otherwise of him.
7.	In deed he was hurt, grief and inflict harm to his feelings. In the end I find there are mere allegations without any shred of evidence to prove.
8.	As such the Claimant deserves to be paid general damages to compensate him as far as money can do it. This will partly remedy his decline esteem and provide solace for his wounded feelings, grief and shame.
9.	In any event damages for any tort ought to be fixed at a sum. It may be difficult because there is wide bracket within which any sum be concluded.
10.	Besides, I have taken cognisance of six guidelines which Chetwynd J quoted in paragraph 7, in the case of Sikua and Manele V Trade Winds Investment Company Ltd and Others.
11.	To fetch a sum I have noted the first Second, third and the fifth Defendants are taking active roles in the creation and publication of the libellous materials.
12.	The first Defendant is a human being who supplied all the information to the third Defendant. The first Defendant is one of the Directors of the second Defendant who owns the logs. The fifth Defendant is an employee of the third Defendant who finalises the information to be broadcasted through broadcasting services owned by the third Defendant.
13.	All those services were coordinated together to promote libel, consequences of which had caused decline in the esteem and reputation of the Claimant.
14.	There are number of case precedence submitted by the Counsels. The focus will be basically on cases determined by our own High Court.
15.	Among the rest, there are three cases which involved politicians (1) Wale V Solomon Star , (2) Dettke V Trade Winds Investment Company Ltd  and (3) Sikua and Manele V Trade Winds Investment Ltd). In the first case the Court awarded $200,000.00 general damages to Mr Wale. In the second case the Court awarded $100,000.00 to Mr Dettke. In the third case the Court awarded $75,000.00 against the Defendant.
16.	For justification purposes, I have also considered the two cases which Mr Radclyffe has brought to my attention. In Sore’s case the Court found that the comments complained of as libellous was not a honest opinion and fair comment, hence, was not accepted as a defence. As a result His Lordship awarded $2,000.00 compensation each against all the Defendants.
17.	The background, the status and the facts of that case is different from the current one. Therefore cannot attract the same approach, or even to consider the total amount as a determinant factor. The figure is far too small.
18.	In the case of International Comtrade V Solomon Star, the damages awarded were $5,000.00 against the Defendant. The Court found the defamation was categorized as mild.  And emphasize the need to consider ordinary perception by a Solomon Islander as to the relevant sum to be given to the Claimants for their injured feelings and loss of business reputation. The Court finally decided $10,000.00 was a sum of money seen as large amount for unseen hurt.
19.	In this case similarity can be struck between Wale’s case and the previous case of Mr Dettke. Both Claimants are Members of Parliament at the time of defamatory actions complained of. The current case the Claimant is one step higher for being a Minister of the Crown at that time.
20.	In terms of seriousness, Mr Wale’s case is more serious. One of the libellous information was that Mr Wale was colluded with an outside organisation to overthrow the legitimate elected government of Solomon Islands. That is more serious by involving outside force interfering with domestic affairs of Solomon Islands. At the same time quite a good number of Australians were in the country working and serving people of Solomon Islands and the Government.
21.	In the current case, defamatory statements were questioning the behaviour and responsibility of the Claimant as a Minister, which defile his character as a leader, and prominent businessman in Solomon Islands. He was accused of theft of logs which fetch value in millions of dollars.
22.	I must award general damages which should be less than $200,000.00. Hence I fetched the amount as $160,000.00 to be paid by all the Defendants jointly to the Claimant.
Aggravated damages:
23.	There is argument that aggravated damages were not pleaded. The time to argue that issue had gone. The issue here is to assess damages only.
24.	The Court of appeal in the case of Solomon Star Ltd V Wale, found that the content of the letter justify a finding of aggravated damages. Further reading of the judgment; urge me to conclude that aggravated damages can be awarded in additional to general damages.
25.	Determinant factors encompass areas as position of the Claimant and his status in the community. In this case the Claimant is obviously qualified under that category.
26.	There was no apology made to the Defendant at all. Publication was repeated, one in the news media and the other in the SIBC website.
27.	The third and the fifth Defendants had failed to offer fair opportunity to the Claimant to make response. They also failed to check the truth of the information before giving information to public. Those behaviours can be described as negligent and reckless broadcasting and publication.
28.	In considering of these facts I must therefore award aggravated damages against third and five Defendants according. And I fetch in the sum of $15,000.00 each.
Orders:
1.	All the Defendants to pay $160,000.00 as general damages to the Claimant.
2.	The 3rd and 4th Defendants to pay $15,000.00 each as aggravated damages to the Claimant. Total damages payable to the Claimant are $190,000.00.
3.	Costs be payable to the Claimant.
The Court.