DC108

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]

CASE NO 24 OF 1998 NO. 2

BETWEEN

DR. MARCUS WOIBUN
Complainant

AND

PAUL YEPEI
Defendant

1 August 2005

REASONS FOR DECISION ON DAMAGES

KORONAI, PM: Liability in this matter was decided on 25th of July, 2005 and matter is before me today on the question of damages only.

The defendant was found liable in defamation for publishing a letter of 16th October, 1997, to the Coroner and officer assisting him, which contained defamatory statements of the complainant, and which alleged that the complainant was the principal planner of and funded the killing of Late Jacob Mandari and that he is guilty of the crime of Wilful Murder under Section 299 (i) of Criminal Code Act Chapter 262.

Facts show that this letter by the defendant was directed to and read by the Coroner and the officer assisting him. This letter was not taken into consideration as by then the Coroner was writing up his findings into the cause of death of Late Jacob Mandari. However rumours apparently spread out and complainant somehow got a copy of this letter resulting in this action against the defendant.

In this case publicity of the defamatory statements from the defendants' letter were not as wide as was the case in BAKER v LAE PRINTING PTY LTD [1979] PNGLR 16, where the defamatory article was published in the Islands News which was read throughout the New Guinea Islands Region and the National Court awarded damages in the sum of K6,000.00. In PAWA KOMBEA v SEMAL PEKE [1994] PNGLR 572, the award was K10,000.00 for a very serious defamatory report of the complainant by the defendant, which was utterly false and widely published, resulting in the complainant, a prominent Politician and Community Leader being locked up and taken to Court over criminal and civil charges which were later dismissed. Then in FRANK MALARA v TURIA MARAVILA; HERMAN ITAGAU; GULF PROVINCIAL EXECUTIVE COUNCIL; AND GULF PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT [1998] PNGLR 326, the award was K25,000.00 to be paid equally in half by the first and second defendants over a statement of a charge by the Provincial Administrator containing defamatory imputations of the basic qualifications of the complainant, the Provincial Treasurer, which was circulated widely, over whom he has no control over which resulted in the complainant finding it hard to get a similar job.

In CROSS v ZUIDEMA [1987] PNGLR 361, the publication of a letter containing defamatory imputations of the complainant was circulated to four senior persons in the Department of Works including the Secretary and the award in that case was K4,000.00. Then in ARSENIO RODRIGUES SAMIANO v ROGER CHRIS DEKUKU N2057 a nominal award of K2,000.00 was given for the publication of a defamatory matter which resulted in disciplinary action being taken against the complainant who was later terminated from his employment.

In this case the defendant's letter containing these defamatory statements was circulated to two persons namely the Coroner and Officer assisting him in the inquest into cause of death of Late Jacob Mandari. Others may have heard it after the matter came to this Court but there is no evidence that it was published widely as in the BAKER or KOMBEA's cases and I consider that publication is close to those in CROSS v ZUIDEMA and SAMIANO v DEKUKU and the award should be close to those awarded there as I consider a sum of K10,000.00 to be very excessive. I further consider that the award of damages by this Court is sufficient and publication of apology in the National Dailies not necessary as defamatory imputations of the complainant was not very wide as those in BAKER v LAE PRINTING PTY LTD. I consider a sum of K5, 000.00 to be the most appropriate award to make against the defendant in favour of the complainant. No costs and interests are awarded as none has been asked for.

FORMAL ORDERS

DEFENDANT IS ORDERED TO PAY TO THE COMPLAINANT THE FOLLOWING:-

1. GENERAL DAMAGES - K5,000.00.

2. NO INTERESTS AND COSTS AWARDED.

3. SUCH SUM OF K5,000.00 SHALL BE PAID BY OR BEFORE 31/09/2005.

4. PARTIES HAVE 30 DAYS FROM 02/08/05 IN WHICH TO APPEAL AGAINST THIS DECISION TO THE NATIONAL COURT, IF THEY'RE AGGRIEVED BY IT.

Complainant: In Person.
Defendant: In Person.