Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback National Court of Papua New Guinea

Katie v Tapus [2021] PGNC 133; N8866 (11 June 2021)

N8866
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

WS NO 532 OF 2016

BETWEEN
PASTOR WAYMAN KATIE
Plaintiff

AND
PASTOR MATHEW TAPUS
Defendant

Wabag &Waigani: Makail, J
2021: 16^th March &11^th June

LIABILITY – Defamation – Libel – Publication of defamatory matter Allegation of false statement – Proof of – Defence of truth – Good faith – Liability not established – Action dismissed – Defamation Act, 1962 – Sections 10, 11, & 12

Cases cited:
Nil

Counsel:

Mr. S. Tenige, for Plaintiff
Mr. H. Pora, for Defendant

JUDGMENT

11^th June, 2021

1. MAKAIL J: This is an action for defamation based on libel. The trial on liability and assessment of damages was based on affidavits with no cross-examination of witnesses. The affidavits that were tendered by both parties were as follows:

1.1. Affidavit of Plaintiff sworn and filed 30^th May 2016 (Exhibit “P1”).

1.2. Affidavit of Defendant sworn 24^th June 2016 band filed 27^th June 2016 (Exhibit “D1”).

1.3. Affidavit of Pastor Anson Isingi sworn 25^th October 2016 and filed 26^th October 20016 (Exhibit “D2”).

1.4. Affidavit of Defendant sworn 20^th November 2016 and filed 21^st November 2016 (Exhibit “D3”).

1.5. Affidavit of Pastor Anson Isingi sworn 27^th January 2021 and filed 28^th January 2021 Defendant (Exhibit “D4”).

1.6. Affidavit of Jerry Eso sworn 27^th January 2021 and filed 28^th January 2021 (Exhibit “D5”).

2. At the heart of the controversy is a letter written by the Defendant as the General Superintendent of the Christian Apostolic Fellowship (“CAF”) Church of Papua New Guinea to Pastors, Leaders and members of the church dated 4^th April 2016. The letter informed them of the suspension of the Plaintiff, amongst others, as member of the CAF National Church Council and Area Supervisor of Wabag District for five years and for all to take heed of this notice.

3. According to the letter, the Plaintiff’s suspension was due to misconduct as a pastor and elder of the church. The details of the misconduct were not disclosed in the letter. Neither did the Plaintiff disclose the reason(s) for his suspension. All he was concerned with was the defamation of his character as a result of the publication of the letter.

4. It was Pastor Jerry Eso who reported that the Plaintiff assaulted him when he was conducting a wedding ceremony at Itakapos CAF Church, Wapenamanda, on 11^th April 2015. The inference opened to draw from this evidence is that the Plaintiff was not open and transparent about the reason for his suspension and it is open to find that he was suspended due to the assault of Pastor Jerry Eso.

5. At common law to succeed in an action for libel, it must be established that a statement was made by a person or group of person, it was published, it caused injury, it must be false and it must not be privileged. Under our Defamation Act, 1962, it is a defence under Section 10 if the published defamatory matter is true or made in good faith under Sections 11 and 12. One of the situations where a defamatory statement is made and not actionable is when it is shared for the protection of the person making the publication or of another person or for the public good.

6. In this case, a statement was made in the letter of 4^th April 2015 by the Defendant that the Plaintiff was suspended for misconduct in office as a Pastor and Elder of the Church. It was published when it was circulated to the Church Pastors, leaders and members.

7. The Plaintiff asserted that he was injured by the statement when the members of his church left him. As the test for defamation is an objective one, none of them gave evidence to verify his assertion. Another significant reason is that, the statement is true. He was suspended because of misconduct after he assaulted Pastor Jerry Eso. This is a serious misconduct. A person who professes to be a servant of God must lead by example. Here, the Plaintiff did not.

8. The Defendant relied on the defence of truth and good faith under Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Defamation Act 1962. Based on the evidence and the defence, I am not satisfied that the Plaintiff has discharged the onus of proof that the published matter in the letter of 11^th April 2015 to the Pastors, leader and members of the CAF Church was either false or made in bad faith or with malice.

9. Finally, it is not clear whether the Defendant may claim privilege for making the statement but it is of no consequence.

10. In the result, the Plaintiff has failed to prove that the statement was either false or made in bad faith or with malice and that he was injured by it. Liability has not been established on the balance of probabilities. The proceeding is dismissed with costs to the Defendant, to be taxed, if not agreed.

Judgment and ordersaccordingly.

________________________________________________________________

SosoTenige Lawyers: Lawyers for Plaintiff
Henry Pora Lawyers: Lawyers for Defendant