IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
CIVIL JURISDICTION

CIVIL CASE NO.: HBC NO.: 373 OF 2007

BETWEEN :

SHARMILA DEVI (father's name Ram Kissun) of Viseisei
Village, Lautoka.
PLAINTIFF

AND :

ROHAN PRASAD (father's name Hari Prasad) of Lautoka City,
Lautoka.
FIRST DEFENDANT

AND:

CHANDRA KUMAR (father's name Ram Prasad) of Velovelo,
Lautoka.
SECOND DEFENDANT

AND:

SHRI LAKSHMI (father's name Ajit Kumar) of Viseisei,
Lautoka.
THIRD DEFENDANT

Appearances: 
Mr Shailen Krishna for the Plaintiff
Ms. Virisila Lidise for the Defendants

JUDGMENT

Introduction

1.	This is an action based upon a claim by the Plaintiff for defamation. In the 
Plaintiff's Statement of Claim (Amended), the Plaintiff claims that the Defendants falsely and maliciously spoke words that were libellous, slanderous and defamatory statements against her from 30th January, 2003 and as a result her character and reputation has been greatly injured and that she has been subjected to public scandal, ridicule and contempt.

The Statement of Claim

2.	In her amended Statement of Claim the Plaintiff claims that the Defendants 
made and continues to make these specific statements;

(i)	That Sharmila is a thief and breaks into people's homes;

(ii)	That Sharmila stole items such as gas stove, single door freezer, wall fan, rug amongst other things from Sant Kumar;

(iii)	That Sharmila broke into the house in Viseisei area and stole items.

3.	The Plaintiff states in paragraph 5 of the amended Statement of Claim that the 
Defendants spoke the alleged defamatory statements to the individuals mentioned therein and several other persons whose names are not known by the Plaintiff.

4.	The Plaintiff claims from the Defendants jointly and severally general damages, 
interest and costs for the aforementioned libellous, slanderous and defamatory statements made against her.

Statement of Defence

5.	In the Statements of Defence filed by the 1st and 2nd Defendants and the 3rd 
Defendant, they deny having made the alleged statements.

Admitted Facts

6.	It is admitted by both parties at the Pre-Trial Conference that the Plaintiff was 
at all material times a Justice of Peace. 

The Trial

7.	In support of the Plaintiff's claim she gave evidence at the trial and called two 
other witnesses. First witness called by the Plaintiff was Satish Chand. When Vimala Devi the next witness for the Plaintiff was giving evidence in chief – the Defence Counsel objected on the ground that there is no statutory declaration filed in respect of the witness. Upon hearing the submission made by both Counsel on the said objection the Court ruled that the witness Vimala Devi cannot be called to give evidence for the Plaintiff. Therefore I will not consider the incomplete evidence given by her in arriving at my decision.

8.	The Defendants called three Individuals identified by the Plaintiff in paragraph 
5 of the Amended Statement of Claim to give evidence. They were Sant Kumar, Pundit Jai Chand and Ram Prakash. The 1st and 2nd Defendants also gave evidence while the 3rd Defendant was not present during the Trial.

9.	At the commencement of the Trial the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff 
submitted to Court that the Plaintiff is withdrawing the claim on loss of business of the Plaintiff. This Judgment is therefore concerned only with the other Claims of the Plaintiff.

The Law

10.	In an action for defamation (slander) Claimant must establish that he has 
suffered special damages. However, the Defamation Act (Cap 34) Section 10 provides that in an action for slander in respect of words calculated to disparage the Plaintiff in any office, profession, calling trade or business held or carried on by him at the time of the publication, it shall not be necessary to allege or prove special damages, whether or not the words are spoken of the Plaintiff in the way of his office, profession, calling, trade or business.

11.	Plaintiff relies on the aforesaid provision in claiming general damages against 
the Defendants' in this matter. By the written submissions filed the Plaintiff submits the words spoken by the Defendants imputed the moral misconduct to the Plaintiff who holds an office (Justice of Peace), the words spoken related to her conduct in the office and/or further impute connection with her official duties. Therefore it is not necessary to prove actual material loss or special damages as the utterance will be a slander actionable per se and defamatory.

12.	Duncan and Neill on Defamation (3rd edition) at page 59 gives four exceptions 
to the provision of proving special damages in an action for slander. The said exceptions are:

"(a)	Where the words charge the Claimant with having committed a 
criminal offence punishable corporally;

(b)	 Where they impute that the Claimant has certain contagious diseases;

(c)	Where they impute unchastity or adultery to any woman or girl;

(d)	 Where they are calculated to disparage the Claimant in any office, 
 profession, calling, trade or business held or carried on by him at the 
 time of publication."(emphasis added)

13.	In Indramani v W R Carpenters & Co. (Fiji) Ltd [1962] Fiji Law Rp 38 [1962] 
8 FLR 46 (9th March, 1962) the Supreme Court held that there are four essentials to be established in an action for defamation.

(1)	That the words complained of must be published;
(2)	Maliciously;
(3)	That they must be defamatory;
(4)	That they must refer to the Plaintiff.

14.	What is publication of Slander is defined in Halsburys Laws of England Forth 
Edition Vol 28 at page 40 paragraph 78 as follows:

"A person publishes a slander who speaks words defamatory of the Plaintiff to or in the presence of a third person who hears them and understands them in a defamatory sense".

Analysis and Determination

15.	Bearing in mind the aforementioned legal provisions and the principles of Law 
outlined in the aforesaid authorities I will get on to the task of analysing the evidence led at the trial to see whether the Defendants spoke the alleged Defamatory Statements to the individuals named in paragraph 5 of the amended Statement of Claim or several other persons.

16.	For the said purpose I will first consider the evidence led in respect of Issue No. 
1 to 3 which are inter-linked and inter-related. The first three issues are:

Issue 1:	WHETHER the Plaintiff has a good reputation in the public and 
has always been held in high respect and esteem?

Issue 2:	WHETHER the Plaintiff's friends, relatives and other business 
persons always treated the Plaintiff as a successful, reliable and honest person.

Issue 3:	WHETHER the Defendants at all material times knew the 
Plaintiff has a good reputation in the public and always been held in high respect and esteem and whether the Defendants at all material times knew that the Plaintiff's, friends, relatives and other business persons always treated the Plaintiff as a successful, reliable and honest person.

17.	The Plaintiff testified that she held the office of Justice of Peace and even till 
today she holds that post. She said that she was a Voluntary Social Worker and that she was awarded with Certificates in Appreciation of her work. Plaintiff produced documentary evidence exhibit P1 to P5, letters and Certificates issued to her to establish this fact. P1 is a letter dated 4th January, 2007 from the Ministry of Provincial Development, P2 is a letter dated 16th February 2004 from the Department of Social Welfare, P3 is a letter dated 26th January, 2004 from the Ministry of Women Social Welfare and Poverty Alleviation, P4 is a Recommendation Letter issued by the Consumer Council of Fiji and P5 is a Certificate of Recognition given at the PRWIDE Conference in 2001. It is evident from the aforesaid documentary evidence that the Plaintiff is a Social Worker who has earned a good reputation in the Society where she lived. The said documentary evidence from various organisations has recognised the Plaintiff as a honest and a reliable person having good reputation in the public.

18.	The next witness Satish Chand also stated that the Plaintiff has a good 
reputation and she is honest lady.

19.	Even the Defendants witness Sant Kumar agreed in cross-examination that 
the Plaintiff had to have a good character to get the JPs post. Pundit Jai Chand Sharma, a witness of the Defendants also admitted in cross-examination that the Plaintiff had a good reputation in the public.

20.	In cross-examination it was put to the Plaintiff that she does not have a 
good character. The Plaintiff said it was because of the three Defendants her reputation fell down.

21.	From the oral and documentary evidence of the Plaintiff and her witness and 
also from the evidence of the Defendants witnesses, it is established on a balance of probability that the Plaintiff had a good reputation and has been held in high esteem in public in her office as a Justice of Peace.

22.	I will now deal with Issue No, 4 to 7 relating to the alleged communications of 
the defamatory matter by the Defendants to some third person or persons.

23.	Issue No. 4 to 7 are as follows:

4.	WHETHER the Defendants on or about and commencing from the 
period 30th January, 2003 falsely and maliciously spoke some of the actual words as follows against the Plaintiff to several persons which were libellous, slanderous and defamatory statements;

4.1)	that Sharmila is a thief and breaks in to people's houses.

4.2)	that Sharmila stole items such as gas stove, single door fridge, 
wall fan, rug amongst other things from Sant Kumar.

4.3)	that Sharmila broke into the house in the Viseisei area and stole 
items.

5.	WHETHER the Defendants spoke the above words in paragraphs 4, 4.1, 
4.2 and 4.3 against the Plaintiff to at least of the following persons and to several other persons whose names are not known by the Plaintiff;

a)	Bal Ram and Urmila Ram – Viseisei
b)	Surendra Prasad – Viseisei
c)	Uday Mistry – Viseisei
d)	Vinesh Mani – Viseisei
e)	Ranga Sami – Viseisei
f)	Nand Prakash – Viseisei Primary School
g)	Shri – Viseisei
h)	Pt. Jai Chand – Viseisei
i)	Satend Kumar – Saweni
j)	Indar Singh – Vuda Point
k)	Sant Kumar – Vuda Back Road
l)	Deepak Chand – Viseisei
m)	Swani Maharaj, Chairperson, Consumer Council, Member of Chamber of Commerce
n)	Ram Prakash – Viseisei
o)	Area – Vuda Point, Viseisei, Saweni – Bal Ram and Urmila Ram showed newspaper cutting and informed.

6.	WHETHER the said words if uttered and spoken by the Defendants (which is in issue) were to imply that the Plaintiff was;

6.1	A dishonest person.
6.2	A person who has abused the trust placed on her.
6.3	That she was not fit to hold the position of a Justice of the Peace.
6.4	A criminal who stole monies and belongings.
6.5	A thief, who stole other people's belongings.
6.6	A thief who breaks into people's houses.

7.	WHETHER the words in paragraph 4 herein if uttered by the Defendants (which is in issue) caused the Plaintiff to greatly injured her credit, character and her reputation and whether the Plaintiff has been brought into the public scandal, ridicule, odium and contempt because of words in paragraph 4 herein allegedly uttered by the Defendants (which is in issue)?

24.	The Plaintiff in her evidence stated that on or about 30/1/2003 she heard 
rumours that the Defendants are saying she is a thief, broke into people's homes and stole items such as gas stove, single door fridge, fan and other things. She also stated that the Defendants said those words in her area, society where she lived at, Weddings, Funeral services at temples, Poojas and at places where people gather. She said she can't remember any specific dates she first heard these rumours but it went on for months, and years till her case was dismissed in 2005, She went on to say that the Defendants kept on saying those words even after her case was dismissed. She said the people came and told her that the Defendants were saying she is no more a JP, the position was revoked after the case. It was revealed by her evidence that she was charged for stealing items from Sant Kumars' house and the case was dismissed in 2005 and the complainants in the said case were the 1st and 2nd Defendants and Suken Nand (deceased).

25.	She stated that due to the Defendants' acts she was disappointed her character 
injured, honesty gone and the public saw her in a different way. She also said that the people were talking behind her back. In functions they no longer called upon her to speak, like they did before, and she was ashamed and stopped going for such gatherings.

26.	When she was asked whether she requested the persons named in paragraph 5 
of the Statement of Claim to come and give evidence she stated that she met few of them but they did not like to get involved or have any problems. She said it was no use to go to the rest as the people she went refused.

27.	When it was put to the Plaintiff in cross-examination that the Defendants never 
went to the places where the Plaintiff mentioned (weddings, funeral services, pooja ceremonies) she said they were seen by her at such places. She denied the suggestion put forward by the Defence Counsel that she is a nosey person. When it was suggested to her that she did not have a good reputation she said that it was because of the Defendants' rumours her standing was falling down. 

28.	In analysing the evidence of the Plaintiff I find that she has maintained her 
version of facts at the cross-examination too.

29.	Next witness called by the Plaintiff was Satish Chand. In evidence in chief he 
said that he knew that the Plaintiff was a JP and he went to see her when he wanted to get any papers signed and at one time he used to work at Saten Kumar's house situated beside the Plaintiff's house. When he was asked whether he goes to her place any more he said no, because he had been told that she was a stealer. When asked who told him that, the witness said it was Rohan, the 1st Defendant who said that when he was working for the 1st Defendant in 2003 April, March. It was also stated by him that many others heard the 1st Defendant saying that the Plaintiff is a stealer, as they were around at the time. He stated further, he heard the 1st Defendant saying the same thing about the Plaintiff at a wedding but not the 2nd Defendant. He said before hearing rumours they thought the Plaintiff is a good lady and after rumours they were thinking she is a very bad lady. When asked whether the 3rd Defendant said anything about the Plaintiff the witness said that the 3rd Defendant told him Plaintiff is a thief and they don't want her to be a JP.

30.	In cross-examination witness said he was the caretaker of the house situated 
behind the Plaintiff's house at Viseisei and the 1st Defendant used to come with buyers for the house. He said the 1st Defendant paid his wages till he was chased away. When asked why he stopped working for the 1st Defendant he said it was due to him calling the FEA regarding a naked wire. He admitted that he filed a case at the Small Claims Tribunal against the 1st Defendant claiming $3000.00 but the case was dismissed due to him not attending. When it was put to the witness that the reason for him to give evidence is that he was chased away by the 1st Defendant the witness said the Plaintiff brought him as a witness as she knew he has worked for the1st Defendant. He denied he is giving evidence due to a grudge against the 1st Defendant. He said further that the 3rd Defendant closed the room and told him about the Plaintiff while he was working there.

31.	In considering the evidence of Satish Chand he has maintained that the 1st, and
3rd Defendants told him about the Plaintiff stealing some items. Though he has been chased away by the 1st Defendant after some time his evidence cannot be disregarded because there is probability of the 1st & 3rd Defendants telling him about Sharmila while the witness was employed by the 1st Defendant.

32.	The Defendants 1st witness was Sant Kumar whose name appears in paragraph 
5 of the amended Statement of Claim as one of the person whom the Defendants have spoken the alleged defamatory words. He said the 2nd Defendant is his brother in law's brother. He denied that the 1st and 2nd Defendants said to him that the Plaintiff is a thief. He said they never said anything against Sharmila. Witness also said he can't recall who the 3rd Defendant is.

In cross-examination he said he is related to the 2nd Defendant and stays 3 miles away from the area where the Plaintiff is living. When he was asked whether the Plaintiff was charged the witness said he has no idea about it. When asked whether the Defendants told him to give evidence the witness stated he did not know what happened. He said he has met the 1st and 2nd Defendants from 2000, but not regarding any issues of this case. When he was asked whether he knew about the case in 2007 he said he knew about it as the Defendants told him about a removal of a school sign board and a case to be filed for in High Court for that and they never told him regarding Sharmila stealing.

33.	In analysing the evidence of Sant Kumar, it is difficult to believe that he never 
knew about the charge against Sharmila. He admits that he met the 2nd Defendant at family gatherings, but denied that the 2nd Defendant telling him about Sharmila being charged for theft. It was obvious from his answers that he was being evasive of knowing what Sharmila's charge was and trying to state that he only knew about a dispute regarding a removal of a school sign board. Moreover as the witness is a relation of the 2nd Defendant, question arises whether his evidence could be considered as credible and independent.

34.	Second witness for the Defendant was Pundit Jai Chand Sharma who said he 
has been living in Saweni for 50 years and he is a Hindu priest who attends to weddings, prayers and funeral prayers. He stated further that he knew the 1st and 2nd Defendant and also the 3rd Defendant who is his aunty's daughter in-law.

When the witness was asked whether he ever heard any one complaining about the Plaintiff, witness said many people used to tell him that others are not good charactered and also that the Plaintiff is not good to hold that post. In examination in chief he revealed that his relationship with the Plaintiff was good earlier but not now. He denied that the Defendants told him about the Plaintiff breaking into Sant Kumars' house.

35.	In cross-examination the witness said that the 3rd Defendant is a bad person 
and she talks about everyone else. He admitted that the 3rd Defendant is a nosey person and it could be possible that she has told Sharmila is a thief. He denied the 1st and 2nd Defendant telling him anything about the Plaintiff. He admitted that he was asked to sign the Statutory Declaration D1 in the presence of the 1st and 2nd Defendants and then they took it away. Though he stated once that he signed it before a JP later he admitted that only the two Defendants were present when it was signed. When the witness was asked whether the 1st Defendant had a property beside the Plaintiff's residence he said he did not know about it. He also stated he only knew the people who stayed there in olden days. When he was asked whether he knew about the claim he denied having any knowledge about it.

36.	When the witness was re-examined he said he signed the statutory declaration 
because the 1st and 2nd Defendants told about Sharma's allegation against them.

37.	I observed that Pundit Sharma was also evasive during cross-examination. 
According to his evidence he knew 1st and 2nd Defendants very well, but he did not know that the 1st Defendant had a house beside the Plaintiff's house. At first he stated that he has been visiting Viseisei back road since 25 years and he knew all residents there as they were related to him. Later in cross-examination he said he only knew the old people of the area. In cross-examination he once said he signed the Statutory Declaration (D2) before a JP, but later admitted it was signed in the presence of 1st and 2nd Defendants. He denied the 1st or 2nd Defendant telling him about Sharmila stealing things but said it is possible for the 3rd Defendant to tell such things as she was a bad- charactered lady. He admitted that the 1st Defendant told him some item were found from the Plaintiff's place, but denied that the 3rd Defendant told him about it. Furthermore, it emerged in the cross-examination of the witness that he and his wife are not in good terms with the Plaintiff; that admission explains why he was evasive at the cross-examination. It is obvious from his evidence that he is covering-up the fact that the Defendants spoke the alleged words to him. 

38.	Looking at the evidence of the witness as above I find it not credible and 
therefore I cannot believe that the Defendants never told him about the Charge 
against the Plaintiff.

39.	The 3rd witness Ram Prakash testified that the 1st Defendant is known to him 
and he is his brother in-laws' brother. He said his brother in-law is Sant Kumar and he is also related to the Plaintiff. He said he knew the Plaintiff is a JP and he went to get her services 10, 12 years ago. When asked why he is not getting her services now, the witness said that they don't have a good relationship and also they don't go to anyone's place. When questioned as to why they don't go to anyone's place, the witness said it is because they don't like anyone gossiping. He said that the Plaintiff used to gossip about a shopkeeper stealing fuel, and also spoke bad things about his mother and brothers. He also stated that the Plaintiff complaining about his sons throwing stones at her. The witness denied that the 1st Defendant told him the Plaintiff is a thief but stated that the 1st Defendant told him about a Gas stove and some items being found from her house. He said that the 2nd Defendant told him someone broke into the house but did not say it was the Plaintiff who broke in.

40.	It is apparent from the evidence of Ram Prakash that the 1st and 2nd Defendants
have told him about the Plaintiff taking some items from Sant Kumar's house. Like the earlier witness Ram Prakash also admits that his relationship with the Plaintiff is not good. Therefore his denial of having heard from the Defendants that the Plaintiff is a thief cannot be considered as credible evidence. Moreover, it is established by his evidence that the 1st Defendant told him about the items found at the Plaintiff's premises and thereafter the Plaintiff's reputation was affected.

41.	I will now quote part of his evidence which I think is relevant to be considered
at this stage.

"Q:	After Rohan (1st Defendant) told you about these items her reputation 
went down in public?
A:	Yes.

Q:	People viewed her as a dishonest person?
A:	Yes.

Q:	They viewed her as a person who abused the trust placed in her?
A:	Yes."

42.	The next witness to give evidence was the 2nd Defendant who testified that the 
1st Defendant is his brother in-law and the Plaintiff is his sister in-law's sister. He denied having told anyone that the Plaintiff is a thief and breaks into home in Viseisei. He also denied having told anyone that the 1st Defendant told him the Plaintiff breaks into houses. He said he doesn't know the 3rd Defendant before but met her after receiving Summons. He also denied having told Satish Chand that the Plaintiff is a thief. In re-examination he said he never told anyone that the Plaintiff is a thief.

43.	The 1st Defendant being the last witness for the Defendants testified that the 2nd 
Defendant is his brother in-law and he knew his brother Sant Kumar 43 years ago from the time of his marriage. He also said that he was given the responsibility to look after the house of Sant Kumar at Viseisei when he migrated to New Zealand. He testified that the house was broken into several times and he reported it to the Police. He revealed that the Plaintiff was charged for breaking into Sant's property but later the case was withdrawn. He denied having told anyone that the Plaintiff is a thief. In answer to cross-examination he denied having told anyone that the Plaintiff breaks into houses.

44.	It is important to note that the Plaintiff did not call any person named in 
paragraph 5 of her amended Statement of Claim to corroborate her claim that 
the alleged defamatory words were spoken by the Defendants. She said though she approached them they refused to come as they did not want to get involved or have any problems. However, 3 of the individuals identified by the Plaintiff in paragraph 5 of the amended Statement of Claim gave evidence as witnesses of the Defendants. They were Sant Kumar, Pundit Jai Chand and Ram Prakash. The question then arises as to why they did not come forward to give evidence for the Plaintiff. It was revealed by their evidence that all of them were not having a good relationship with the Plaintiff. That I think gives the explanation as to why they did not come to give evidence for the Plaintiff.

45.	Though all 3 witnesses denied that the Defendants spoke the alleged 
defamatory words, as analysed above I find that their evidence is not credible. Furthermore they seem to be evasive during answering the questions in cross-examination. It is difficult for me to believe that the Defendants did not tell the witnesses about the Plaintiff's case as they knew each other very well. Witness Sant Kumar stated that the 2nd Defendant who is related to him never said about the charges against Sharmila. It transpired in evidence Sant Kumar lived in the same area where Plaintiff is living. Therefore it is probable that the 2nd Defendant to have spoken about the charge against the Plaintiff to the witness who is his relative. When he was repeatedly asked about this in cross-examination he evaded answering by saying he knew of a problem regarding a school sign board.

46.	Witness Ram Prakash admitted that the 1st Defendant told him about some 
items being found at the Plaintiff's house which were stolen from Sant Kumar's home. He admitted that the people started viewing the Plaintiff as a dishonest person after the 1st Defendant telling him about that incident.

47.	Pundit Jai Chand Sharma also revealed in evidence in chief that many people 
used to tell that the Plaintiff is not fit to hold that post, the way she talks is not good. But the witness denied that the Defendants said anything against her. He also said he is not in good terms with the Plaintiff. Having known the Defendant for a long period of time I am surprised about him not coming to know from the Defendants about the Criminal charge against the Plaintiff.

48.	The Plaintiff maintained in her evidence that the Defendants spoke the alleged 
words at gatherings and she came to know from the people about it. Plaintiff's witness Satish Chand also said that the 1st and 3rd Defendants spoke about the Plaintiff when he was working as Caretaker of Sant Kumar's house. Though it was revealed in evidence that he was chased away by the 1st Defendant, it is possible for the Defendants having told the witness about the Plaintiff while he was working for them.

49.	In weighing the totality of the evidence adduced on behalf of both parties, I 
find on the balance of probabilities there is credible evidence to prove that the alleged defamatory words were spoken by the Defendants to several persons including some person named in paragraph 5 of the Amended Statement of Claim. I also find that the words spoken by the Defendants charge the Plaintiff with having committed a criminal offence punishable corporally and they are calculated to disparage the Claimant in her office as a JP at the time of publication. As such the alleged statements are in law and fact defamatory.

50.	I will now get on to the next 3 issues to be determined in this matter. Issues 
No. 9 should be amended to confine the claim to general damages as the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff withdrew the claim on loss of business at the commencement of the Trial.

51.	Issue No. 9 – 14 are as follows: -

9.	WHETHER the Plaintiff has suffered general damages.
 
10.	WHETHER the Plaintiff's claim is frivolous, vexation and an abuse of 
court process.

11.	WHETHER the Plaintiff is entitled to general damages against the Defendants and such of them for libellous, scandalous and defamatory statement allegedly made against the Plaintiff.

12.	WHETHER the Plaintiff is entitled to interest.

13.	WHETHER the Plaintiff is entitled to costs.

14.	WHETHER the Defendant is entitled to costs on a solicitors/client basis.

52.	The Plaintiff testified that she had to suffer because of the Defendants conduct. 
She said in evidence the words spoken by the Defendants implied that she was a dishonest person, abused the trust placed in her and not fit to hold the position of JP as she is a criminal who breaks into houses. She stated that she was disappointed, shocked and distressed due to this and her standard in the society fell down due to this. She also said that the people started talking behind her back after that.

53.	Satish Chand in his evidence said he stopped going to the Plaintiff's place after 
hearing the rumours.

54.	Even the Defendant's witness Ram Prakash admitted that the Plaintiff's 
reputation went down after the 1st Defendant told him about the items found at her place. He admitted that the people accused her as a dishonest person and a person who abused the trust placed on her after that.

55.	From the evidence adduced by both parties I find that the Plaintiff has 
established on the balance of probabilities, her reputation was adversely affected due to the actions and conduct of the Defendants and caused her to suffer and continues to suffer damages to her reputation and character. Therefore I hold that the Plaintiff is entitled to general damages against the Defendants and such of them for libellous, scandalous and defamatory statements allegedly made against the Plaintiff.

56.	By the written submission filed the Plaintiff claims $30,000.00 (Thirty Thousand 
Dollars) as damages against each of the Defendant severally and jointly and interest of 6% from the date of cause of action arose.

57.	The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff relies on Prasad v Khelawan [2011] FJHC 
123; HBC 325; 2003 (1 March 2011) in claiming the sum of $30,000.00. In the said case judgment was entered against the 1st named 1st Defendant to pay the Plaintiff a sum of $30,000.00 with interest of 6% per annum for the wrong in tort of defamation of the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff in the said matter was a Assistant Head Teacher of a High School. In awarding she said sum of $30,000.00 the Court has considered the Plaintiff's impeccable reputation as a School Teacher having taught in one school for over 22 years and the 1st named 1st Defendant making the defamatory utterance in the presence of the officials of the Ministry of Education. The award of $30,000.00 as damages to a High School Teacher who is employed under the Ministry of Education as a public servant in my view cannot be taken as a guideline to award general damages to a person who is holding a post of JP. As such I find the general damages claim of $30,000.00 from each of the Defendants in this matter is excessive. I therefore award general damages in the sum of $20,000.00 against each of the Defendants severelly and jointly in favour of the Plaintiff and interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from 30th January, 2003 till date of this Judgment and thereafter on the aggregate sum of this Judgment till payment in full.

58.	The Plaintiff in the written submission proposes the sum of $5,000.00 costs 
against each Defendant. As this action has proceeded for nearly 08 years I award costs summarily assessed in a sum of $2,000.00 against each Defendant.

59.	Final Orders

(a)	Judgment is hereby entered against each of the Defendants severelly 
and jointly to pay the Plaintiff a sum of $20,000.00 together with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from 30th January 2003 till date of Judgment and thereafter together with the same interest of 6% per annum on the aggregate sum of this Judgment till payment in full.

(b)	Each of the Defendants to pay costs summarily assessed in a sum of 
$2000.00 to the Plaintiff.

Lal S. Abeygunaratne
Judge

At Lautoka
25 August, 2015