Anthony Michael Perkins Claimant v Leewards Media Group Ltd Defendant [ECSC]
| Jurisdiction | Saint Kitts and Nevis |
| Judgment Date | 22 April 2012 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2012] ECSC J0422-1 |
| Docket Number | CLAIM NO. NEVHCV2010/0184 |
| Date | 22 April 2012 |
| Court | High Court (Saint Kitts and Nevis) |
IN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
NEVIS CIRCUIT
CLAIM NO. NEVHCV2010/0184
The Claimant who is a Civil Engineer by profession was a Minister of Government in the Nevis Island Administration (NIA) from September 2001 to July 2006 when the Concerned Citizen Movement (CCM) party formed the Government.
The Claimant, then had the portfolios of Ministry of Infrastructural Development, Planning, Environment, Natural Resources and Works assigned to him.
The Claimant testified under cross examination that the Ministry of Works was assigned to him in 2003.
Prior to becoming a minister he was Project Manager from 1996 to 2001 in the NIA. The Claimant also occupied the post of Director of Public Works Department (PWD).
The CCM government undertook a reconstruction of a section of the island main road from Five Turnings, Cotton Ground to the Vance Amory Airport, estimated to be about three and a half miles. The reconstruction of the road was done by Professional Technologies Ltd. (PROTECH). The work began in early 2000 and was completed in or about late 2003.
During the pendency of the work the Claimant was Minister of Works, under whose portfolio the road construction was.
In its issue of 16th July to 22nd July 2010 the Defendant in its newspaper printed and published the following words of the Claimant "How many poor people who rooted for Michael Perkins in St. Paul's expected to see this man waste their own Tax payers money to the tune of Ten Million Dollars and then explain it away as an honest mistake. The people of New York Town Hall meeting simply asked what the Nevisian people are wondering: Why do we have to dodge pot holes while driving on the most expensive piece of road in Nevis? Michael Perkins has stated that the overpayment was an honest mistake. This raises the other questions relating to who (sic) the overpayment was made to (sic) and whether there is a possibility of fraud involved in such an overpayment. In any event after such mistake why would anyone support a candidate who has admitted to wasting US $10,000,000.00 during his term in government office."
On 13th December 2010 the Claimant filed a statement of Claim in which he alleges that-
"in its natural and ordinary meaning the words meant and were understood to mean:-
(a) that the Claimant was responsible for the tax payers paying US $10,000,000.00 on a badly constructed road and an unwarranted and even fraudulent payment to some third part or others
(b) the Claimant was in some conspiracy with others to defraud the tax payers of the country out of US $10,000,000.00
(c) that the Claimant was incompetent and was unworthy to be elected as a representatives (sic) of the people in the 2001 elections and in the upcoming local elections."
In the alternative by way of innuendo the Claimant alleges that the said words meant and were understood to mean:
-
(i) That the Claimant was incompetent project manager and a Minister of Communications and works and was an unscrupulous scoundrel unworthy to be elected as a representative of the people in the upcoming local elections
-
(ii) That he has somehow benefited by the orchestration of the fraudulent conspiracy with others to defraud the country of US $10,000,000.00
-
(iii) That he abused and betrayed his position as an Honourable Member of the Nevis Island Assembly and a Minister of Government and was not worthy of being a member of the Assembly then or in the future.
The Claimant alleges that by reason of allegations that he has been gravely injured in his character and reputation and has been brought into public scandal, odium contempt and has suffered damages.
Learned Counsel, Mrs. Cozier, for the defendant, on a preliminary point, submitted that paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Claimants Statement of Claim should be struck out.
Learned Counsel also submitted that paragraphs 7 and 8 of the witness statements of Ernestine Rawlins and paragraphs 8 and 9 of Calvin G. Jones' witness statement should be struck out.
Mrs. Cozier argued that paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Statement of Claim are unsupported by any particulars as the Claimant has failed to plead any and therefore it is an abuse of the process of the court.
In her Skeleton arguments, Mrs. Cozier referred toSlim v Daily Telegraph Ltd. 1 All ER 14971 Where Salmon LJ. opined:
"A "true" n "legal" innuendo is a meaning which is different from the normal and natural meaning of the words, and defamatory because of special facts and circumstances known to those to whom the words are published. The ordinary meaning and innuendo give rise to different causes of action and, accordingly must be separately pleaded."
Learned counsel also quoted fromGatley on Libel and Slander2 the learned authors instruct us as follows:-
"Such facts have also been referred as "added", "extraneous" or "special" facts or "something outside the words" They may, for instance, be the circumstances of the publication, any accompanying gestures or expression or tone of voice, a slang or technical meaning or that of a foreign language or some additional fact which would allow those who knew i.e.- to read the defamatory meaning into the words published. The key point is that the matter is not one of general knowledge. Thus to say of a man that he was seen to enter a named house would contain a derogatory implication for anyone who knew that that house was a brothel, but not for anyone who did not."
Mrs. Cozier also referred toRules 26.1 (2) ( 1) and 2 (1) (2) J3
I have difficulty in understanding how these rules are relevant or applicable to the application to strike out part of the Claimant's Statement of case on the ground that it was not specifically pleaded.
In paragraph 6 of the Claimant's statement of claim he pleads:
By way of Innuendo, "the words meant and were understood to mean:-
-
(i) That the claimant was an incompetent Project Manager and a Minister of Communication of works and was unscrupulous scoundrel unworthy to be elected as a representative of the people in the upcoming local elections.
-
(ii) That he has somehow benefited by the orchestration of the fraudulent conspiracy with others to defraud the country of US $10,000,000.00.
-
(iii) That he abused and betrayed his position as an Honourable Member of the Nevis Island Assembly and a Minister of Government and was not worthy of being a member of the Assembly then and in the future."
I ruled that an innuendo can only arise from the words complained of. In paragraph 6 (referred to above) the Claimant pleaded the words as he understood them to mean. In my opinion the Claimant has pleaded the innuendo and therefore the application by Mrs. Cozier to strike out the innuendo as pleaded was refused.
In his witness statement the Claimant says that he lives at Craddock Road Charlestown Nevis with his wife of 13 years and their two sons Rraheem and Demetri ages 12 and 5 years respectively.
In 1991 he graduated from the Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University College with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Civil Engineering.
From 1991 to 1994 he was employed as Civil Engineer at Public Works Department Nevis. He served as Director of Public works from 1994 to 1996 and from 1996 to 2001 he was Project Manager of the Nevis Island Administration.
From September 2001 to July 2006 he served as an elected Minister in the Nevis Island Administration. He also served as a nominated Senator in the Federal Parliament of St. Kitts and Nevis from June 2000 until January 25, 2010.
The Claimant pursued a Masters (degree) in Business Administration (MBA) General Management at the Metropolitan College Manhattan in 2008.
The Claimant was candidate for the Concerned Citizens Movement (CCM) party in July 2006 local elections in which he lost the seat which he had held and in which the CCM lost government it had held for some 14 years.
The Claimant spoke at a public meeting on the political platform of CCM sometime in 2009. He spoke on the issue of the construction of a section of the Island Main road from Vance Amory International Airport and Five Turnings at Cotton Ground.
At that meeting the Claimant gave an explanation of why there were cost overruns on the project and pointed out reasons such as changes in the design construction which resulted in an increased scope of works and on site problems experienced, a water-logged of approximately half mile section of the road way caused by a high water table.
Mr. Perkins said that a very important fact which contributed to the cost overruns was that whereas Public Works Department was to supply certain services or imputs to the contractor during the construction, this arrangement turned out to be too much of an undertaking for PWD. The government had no choice but to instruct the contractor to carry out all of the works. The original contact price for the work that the contractor was required to carry out was EC$10.5 million. The original costs incurred as a result of design changes mitigated against some of the problems encountered and the value of the contractor having to take over the work inputs of the PWD resulted in an overall contract value of around EC$19 million. Of this final contract sum of approximately EC$19 million, the amount that would constitute cost overrun from an engineering and financial standpoint may have amounted to about EC$3 million.
In 1999 the NIA received bids for the reconstruction of about 10.5 miles of road. The lowest bid was EC$54 million, about approximately EC$5.4 million per mile. At the time Government had access to EC$23 million of loan funds from CDB.
The project was then rearranged and split in two segments a 3.5 mile section from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial