Edison C James Claimant v Claudius "cocom" Letang Defendant [ECSC]
| Jurisdiction | Dominica |
| Judge | LANNS, MASTER |
| Judgment Date | 03 June 2010 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2010] ECSC J0603-1 |
| Court | High Court (Dominica) |
| Docket Number | Claim No DOMHCV2008/0321 |
| Date | 03 June 2010 |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CIVIL)
Claim No DOMHCV2008/0321
Mr McDonald Christopher for the Claimant
Mrs Heather Felix Evans for the Defendant
On 19th August 2008, Edison James (Mr James) issued a Claim against Claudius "Cocom" Letang (Mr Letang) claiming damages for libel allegedly spoken and published during a broadcast programme hosted by Leonard "Pappy" Baptiste on Kairi FM on 22nd July 2008. Mr James alleged that in speaking and publishing the alleged defamatory words, Mr Letang was motivated by malice.
The publisher of the words complained of spoke about Mr Roosevelt Skerritt, the current Prime Minister of Dominica, and Mr Edison James the former Prime Minister of Dominica.
The publisher commented on "the land that money God gave to Skerritt". The publisher stated that if other persons had gotten the land that God gave to Prime Minister Skerritt, they would have taken it. The publisher then went on to state as a fact that Mr James built a 4 million dollar hotel in Barbados. He then requested Mr Baptiste, the host of theprogramme to enquire of Mr James as to where he, Mr James took the money with which he built a 4 million dollar hotel in Barbados.
Mr James alleges that the natural and ordinary meaning of the words is that he is dishonest, committed a criminal offence by stealing; that he breached section 47(1) of the Integrity in Public Office Act No 6 of 2003; that he lacked integrity when he served as Prime Minister; and that he is unpatriotic.
The Defendant denies having spoken or published the words complained of. He denies that the words bear the meanings alleged or any defamatory meaning. He asserts that the Defendant could not have published maliciously what he did not publish at all.
In the three-fold application now before the court, Mr Letang seeks the following reliefs:
-
(1) An order determining whether or not the words complained of are capable of bearing a defamatory meaning or meanings attributed to them in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the statement of claim.
-
(2) An order striking out paragraphs 9 and 12 of the Statement of claim as disclosing no reasonable case against Mr Letang or as being an abuse of process.
-
(3) An order dismissing the claim.
-
(4) Costs of the application.
The grounds of the application may be summarized as follows:
-
a) There is nothing in the words complained of which suggests that the Claimant was being accused of dishonesty, theft or breach of a provision of theIntegrity in Public Office Act.
-
b) A statement was made about the source of Prime Minister Skerritt's land. There was no imputation in this statement that Prime Minister Skerritt was dishonest, or had breachedthe Integrity in Public Office Act. This statement was soon followed by a declaration that the Claimant had built a hotel in Barbados and a query as to the source of Mr James's money for building a hotel in Barbados. These words could not have the meaning attributed to them by the Claimant, or any defamatory meaning.
-
c) At the relevant time, theIntegrity in Public Office Act had not come into operation and therefore it was impossible for that Act to have been breached at the material time.
-
d) In relation to paragraph 8 of the Statement of Claim, the Claimant has not identified the relevant extrinsic facts on which he relies to contend for the innuendo meaning; the words complained of do not bear any of the meanings contended or any defamatory meaning.
-
e) The Claimant has failed to properly plead malice by setting out the particulars of primary facts on which he relies to allege malice.
When the Defendant's learned solicitor Mrs Felix-Evans (Mrs Felix-Evans) was about to make her application, Mr Christopher raised a preliminary objection to Mr Letang's supporting affidavit —an objection which was first raised in paragraphs 12 and 28 of Mr James' affidavit in opposition to Mr Letang's' application. Counsel submitted that Mr Letang's affidavit in support of the application should be struck out because it contains no evidence, only a legal conclusion. Mr Christopher referred the court to rules 11. 9 and 30,3(1) and went on to submit that Mr Letang has breached those rules in not providing evidence in support of the application and in not containing such facts as Mr Letang is able to prove from his own knowledge. Further, Mr Christopher submitted that there is no evidence to support a ruling on meaning. If there is no affidavit evidence, the application is a nullity, Mr Christopher contended.
In response, Mrs Felix-Evans submitted that no affidavit is necessary because the questions before the court are questions of law and as such no facts are necessary. Learned counsel posited that the affidavit can only speak to facts —not evidence, and Mr Letang can only be advised by his lawyer. He is saying that based on the advice given to him by his lawyer there are good grounds for the application. Counsel was of the view that in a case of this nature where a question of law is before the court, the general rule as contained in rule 33.3(1) which says that a deponent must only speak of facts which he is able to prove from his own knowledge is inapplicable. In her view, if the court were to reject the Defendant's application it would be saying that rule 69.4 has no meaning.
Mr Letang's affidavit in support of the application was a short affidavit containing 4 paragraphs. Paragraph 1 deposes to his identity. In paragraphs 2 and 3, Mr Letang state:
"2. "Where the mattes to which I depose are within my knowledge they are true. Where the matters are not within my own knowledge, the information contained in this affidavit is true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, and is based upon the facts herein."
"3 I have read the Notice of Application and the grounds thereof and, based on the advice of my solicitor regarding the relevant law verily believe these are good grounds for my application.
In paragraph 4 Mr Letang urges the court to grant the orders that he sought.
It is evident that Mr Letang's affidavit did not contain any facts; instead, it deposed to the grounds of application put forward in his application.
After due consideration of the submissions, and on the basis of rule 11.8 (3) (c), and rule 69.4 which does not require evidence, I agreed with the submissions of Mrs Felix-Evans, and overruled the point in limine and allowed Mrs Felix Evans continue the Claimant's application. In doing so, she highlighted the grounds of the application and expanded on the written submissions that had been filed.
Mr Christopher then expanded on written submissions filed on behalf of Mr James. He also referred to the contents of Mr James' affidavit in opposition to Mr Letang's application. It is instructive to outline relevant contents of the affidavit in opposition.
Mr James, in his affidavit in opposition to the application states, among other things that the plain and natural and ordinary meaning of the words is that he dishonestly took $4 million which was disproportionate to his income and that the said statement allegedly made by Mr Letang is seen in the context of corruption which the Defendant was alleging.
Mr James pointed out that it matters not that theIntegrity in Public Office Act No 6 of 2003 was not yet in force when he was Prime Minister or when the false and defamatory statement was made by the Defendant. He was adamant that the words conveyed an imputation that he was dishonest, unpatriotic, lacked integrity when he served as Prime Minister.
In relation to the issue of Malice, Mr James deposed that he clearly outlined the particulars of malice in his Statement of Claim and in his Reply. He further deposed that the words called attention to him, defamed him and held him up in contempt, scorn and ridicule. Consequently, according to Mr James, the words tend to lower him in the estimation of the community, and deter persons from associating or dealing with him, or induce them to shun him for dishonesty. He further stated that the words have brought him into hatred and contempt and have diminished his standing among reasonable people. Mr James concluded his affidavit by urging the court to dismiss with costs the Defendant's applicationand rule that the words complained of were capable of bearing a defamatory meaning. I now consider the first limb of the application.
Paragraph 3 of the statement of claim states:
"On Tuesday 22nd July 2008 during a radio programme on Kairi FM Radio the Defendant called in and falsely and maliciously said by the following transcript;
"Those fellars Pappy you haven't got to let them fool you. And if you become the Prime Minister tomorrow they themselves will have the same hatred they have in they heart for Skerritt. If they had gotten the land that Money God give to Skerritt, all of them would have taken it. Edison James go and build big hotel in Barbados. Ask Edison James where he took the money for him to build that 4 million dollar hotel in Barbados. You should ask Edison James what happened…."
Paragraph 7 states:
"The said words in their natural and ordinary meaning meant and were understood to mean:
a) The Claimant was dishonest and built a $4 million hotel in Barbados.
b) That by Section 47 (1) of the INTEGRITY IN PUBLIC OFFICE ACT 6 of 2003 the Claimant as a person in public life is liable to a fine of $5000.00and imprisonment for a term of two years and forfeiture of assets if...
To continue reading
Request your trial