Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Solomon Islands

Riumana v Solomon Star Ltd [2023] SBHC 143; HCSI-CC 113 of 2014 (27 October 2023)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 113 of 2014

BETWEEN

SELWYN RIUMANA
Claimant

AND:

SOLOMON STAR LIMITED
First Defendant

AND:

EDNAL PALMER
Second Defendant

AND:

EDITOR OF THE SOLOMON STAR NEWSPAPER
Third Defendant

Date of Judgment: 27 October 2023

Suri G for the Claimant
Fa’atoa for the Defendants

Judgment

Maina PJ:

1. This is a claim in defamation. The plaintiff claims that on 4^th March 2014, the Defendants published an article on the Solomon Star Newspaper at the front page headline “Politician engaged in lucrative contract” about them which the Claimant say defamatory.
2. In the article, it says that the Claimant owned the MV Uta Princess and obtained contract from the Government in a corrupt manner and pocketing two million dollars.
3. The claimant denies the allegation and stated the actual words used were of concern to him and defamatory.

Agreed Facts

4. Counsels for both parties agreed to the facts:
   • (a) At the material time when the statement were published, the claimant was a Member of Parliament for Hograno- Kia-Havulei Constituency of Isabel Province.
   • (b) The facts pleaded in paragraph 2.0, 3.0 and 4.00 of the Statement of Case of the further Amended Claim filed on 5^th June 2014 as to the description of the Defendants are admitted by the defendants.
   • (c) The Defendants published an article at the front page about the claimant on 4^th March 2014 on the front page of Solomon Star Newspaper.
   • (d) The following were part of the quotations:
     • (i) Front page headline “Politician engaged in lucrative contract”
     • (ii) “Shipping companies owned by two politicians have been engaged in million dollars contract”
     • (iii) “MV Uta Princess is owned by member of Parliament (MP) Selwyn Riumana while the MV Maetala and MV Makulata are both owned by East Fataleka MP Steve Abana”
     • (iv) “The source said while it is true that the two MPs owned ships as other people or groups, it is highly questionable why politician were chosen instead of other shipping groups”
     • (v) “This could only be seen as another self-serving business”
     • (vi) The source claimed the two MPs may pocket a million dollars for the assignment”
     • (vii) How transparent the selection of the two shipping companies was for the assignment would be interesting to know”

Facts not disputed

5. The Plaintiff had served two terms as elected MP for Hograno- Kia-Havulei Constituency from 2006 to 2014 but lost in 2014 National Election. He was a founding member of HPA, member and Chairman of the Association.
6. The Hograno Peoples Association (HPA) is an association for the people of Hograno people of Isabel Province. The HPA is the legal owners of the Uta Shipping Company Limited, which owns the MV Uta Prince.

Agreed Issues

7. Counsel advocate for the Claimant and Counsel advocate for the Defendants agreed on the issues for determination at trial:
   • (i) Whether the statements published were defamatory statements and if so whether they are serious and grave.
   • (ii) Whether the Defendants negligent or reckless about the matter they published the statement.
   • (iii) Whether the published statements if found to be defamatory were intended to lower or injure the reputation of the Claimant.
   • (iv) Whether the Defendants published the statement complained on in public interest.
8. With the issues, they are to prove or for the court determine if the article published by the Defendants at the front page about the claimant are defamatory which I think should be dealt with together.
9. The issues relate to ownership of MV Uta Prince, obtaining the contract from the Government in a corrupt manner and alleged pocketing of two million dollars and involvement of the Claimant.
10. To put it in short, whether the words in the article published in the Solomon Star Newspaper as stated in the agreed facts is libel.
11. The Defendants admitted the publication of the article on the Solomon Star Newspaper and said that it was published in the public interest and was fair comment.
12. The editor and the reporter admitted that they did not verify the information provided to them and maintained their position that the article is not defamatory.
13. The counsel for the Defendants submitted that the act of the Claimant was corrupt and questionable as he was leader (MP) under section 93 and 94 of the Constitution. This provision applies to the Claimant with that responsibility of his office.
14. The Defendants produce no defence rather rely on the Defence counsel’s submission on corporate veil of Uta Shipping Ltd. Counsel submitted that if lifted would reveal the Claimant as the main person on the establishment of the shipping company and the Defendants have published these about the Claimant’s complaint or complaining about.
15. In fact, the Claimant was a Member of Parliament for Hograno- Kia-Havulei Constituency, chairperson of the HPA and one of the four directors Uta Shipping Ltd.
16. Defence counsel in his submission attempted to lift the corporate veil of Uta Shipping Ltd on the involvement or participation of the Claimant with the setup of the HPA and its shipping company. Interesting to note this submission was not supported by factual evidence adduced from the Defendants than the mere Defence Counsel’s submission.
17. However, with the matter of the corporate veil of Uta Shipping Ltd, Claimant’s sworn evidence disclosed that he is chair of the HPA and one of the four directors Uta Shipping Ltd.
18. The Claimant confirmed his directorship of the Uta Shipping Ltd, but the Claimant did not involve in the running of the company’s ship MV Uta Prince.
19. The Uta Shipping Ltd and the MV Uta Prince has been under the management of the General Manager Mr Dick Sikapu
20. Mr Dick Sikapu did the bid for the transportation of the Electoral Commission materials. He prepared and made the bid for the shipping company and he signed the bid letter by himself.
21. With the ownership of MV Uta Prince, the Claimant produced a Certificate of Registration dated 28^th January 2011, which state the Hograno Peoples Association of Isabel Province owns the MV Uta Prince.
22. The HPA holds 64/64% shares of MV Uta Prince and Member of Parliament (MP) Selwyn Riumana was the chairperson of the HPA, which owns the shipping Company and MV Uta Prince.
23. The award letter by CTB dated 27^th February 2014 shows a contract for an amount of $308,333.00, which the Uta Shipping Ltd confirmed to them on 28^th February 2014.
24. The MV Uta Princess delivered the voter personals, registration kits/materials and fuel drums to all the ports concern.
25. Uta Shipping Ltd for the contract only received $154,166.50 under the contract of $308,333.00 from the Electoral Commission – receipt dated 10^th April 2014.

Analysis

26. The following evidences from the sworn evidence of the Claimant disclose the facts of ownership of the MV Uta Prince and its management and the role of the Claimant with ship:
    • By the Certificate of Registration, the MV Uta Prince is own by the Hograno Peoples Association of Isabel Province.
    • Claimant Selwyn Riumana by virtue and was the MP for Hograno- Kia-Havulei Constituency under rules of HPA and shipping company took up the responsibilities of the chairpersons of HPA and shipping company.
    • Claimant did not involve in the running of the ship. The Uta Shipping Ltd and the MV Uta Prince was under the management of the General Manager Mr Dick Sikapu
    • Mr Dick Sikapu did the bid for the transportation of the Electoral Commission materials. He prepared and made the bid for the shipping company and he signed the bid letter by himself.
27. The article at front page of the Newspaper under title “Politician engaged in lucrative contract” “Politician engaged in lucrative contract ”directly named the Claimed when states “MV Uta Princess is owned by member of Parliament (MP) Selwyn Riumana ..............” and “Shipping companies owned by two politicians have been engaged in million dollars contract”
28. The question of defamatory statement published, if they were serious and grave, the article refers to the Claimant and in its ordinary meaning.
29. The statement stated that the:
    • Claimant own the MV Uta Prince but the evidence shows the ship is own by the HPA which run the Uta Shipping Ltd.
    • Claimant secured a contract in a corrupt manner is not true as the management of the General Manager Mr. Dick Sikapu did the bid on the tender.
30. There is no evidence from the Defendants that the Claimant and even the Uta Shipping Ltd earns millions of dollars from the corruptive contract or dealing with the Government that the Uta Shipping Ltd earns only $154,166.50 under the contract of $308,333.00 from the Electoral Commission – receipt dated 10^th April 2014.
31. The above statements, in fact were serious and grave.
32. This also amount to an attack on the reputation of the Claimant and a serious and grave libellous attack on him given the circumstances the claimant was the MP for Hograno- Kia-Havulei Constituency.
33. As noted earlier, the Defendants admitted that they did not verify the information and that amount to gross negligent or reckless about the manner they published the statement on part of the Defendants.
34. The statement was not verified and the fact that the Claimant was at the time a Member of Parliament such statement if comes to the ordinary right-thinking person will lower or injure the reputation of the Claimant^[1] .
35. To be a fair comment and for public interest, the Defendants should expressed the opinion honestly and they should done so upon facts accurately stated^[2] however with the information these information were not verified and not correct and they are false.
36. The lift of corporate veil of Uta Shipping Company Ltd as a defence do not produce or support the statement published by the Defendants about the Claimant, by common knowledge was MP. The defence is lame and bears no substance to the evidence adduced for the claim by the Claimant.
37. The evidences by the claimant as presented by the Claimant’s Counsel is substantial and support the claim of defamation and I am satisfied that the information published is libel and the defendants are jointly liable.
38. The evidences by the claimant as presented by the Claimant’s Counsel is substantial and support the claim of defamation and I am satisfied that the information published is libel and the defendants are jointly liable.
39. I have considered the circumstances and the nature of the article, the harm caused to the claimant’s reputation and honesty, and in particular, when it was going towards the national election. The claimant was MP for Hograno- Kia-Havulei Constituency and intended to seek re-election. For libel, I award the damages of $75,000.00 to the claimant.

Orders of the Court

(i) The information is libellous.
(ii) The defendants are jointly liable.
(iii) Defendants to pay the damages of $75,000.00 to the claimant
(iv) Costs awarded to the claimant to be taxed if not agreed.

THE COURT
Hon. Justice Leonard R Maina
Puisne Judge

^[1]. Resene Paint Fiji Ltd v Mohindra [2012] FJHC 1392; HBC87. 2004 (5 October 2012)/Gillick v BBC & others [1995] TLR 527 at 528. .
^[2] Fiji Times Ltd v Vayeshnoi ABU 002/08/Reynolds v Times Newspaper Ltd and others (2001)2 AC 127/ Branson v [2002] QB 727