Clarke v Clarke

• Jurisdiction: Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Court: High Court (Saint Kitts and Nevis)
• Judge: Williams, J.
• Judgment Date: 18 April 1984
• Neutral Citation: KN 1984 HC 2
• Docket Number: 8 of 1981
• Date: 18 April 1984

High Court

Williams, J.

8 of 1981

Clarke

and

Clarke

Appearances :

Eugene Walwyn for the plaintiffs.

Theodore Hobson for the defendant.

Damages - Defamation — Slander — Words spoken about plaintiff's wife — Quantum

Williams, J.

1 The first-named plaintiff is employed by Evelyn's Travel Agency as an aircraft attendant, he is the husband of the second-named plaintiff and they live together and reside at Crosses Alley in Nevis with a four year old child of the marriage and at the time of hearing of this case the second-named plaintiff was pregnant. The second-named plaintiff is unemployed and performs the duties of housewife.

2 The defendant is a taxi operator and driver being the owner of two taxi motor-cars and resides at Butlers Village in Nevis. The defendant operates his taxi from the Newcastle Airport in Nevis where the first-named plaintiff is engaged as an aircraft attendant.

3 The facts briefly are that on the 6th day of January, 1983 at about 1.00 p.m. while the first-named plaintiff was at work the telephone on the desk at Evelyn's Travel Agency at the Airport rang. The desk on which the telephone is located is not in an enclosed area. The first-named plaintiff was in the airport building but in the Immigration section which is not at the area where the ringing telephone was located. The first-named plaintiff was the only employee for Evelyn's Travel Agency on duty at the time.

4 The defendant who was fairly close to where the ringing telephone was took it up and answered it. The first-named plaintiff having heard the telephone ringing left the Immigration area and came to where the telephone was with the intention of answering same.

5 There is some dispute between the defendant and the first-named plaintiff as to what exactly took place at this stage; what is however clear is that the first-named plaintiff did not wish the defendant to answer the telephone and as a result there was an exchange of words between them, suffice it to say that as a result of what took place between them the first-named plaintiff alleged that the defendant told him the following words which is the subject of this action namely:

“You making noise about the telephone why you don't go home and look for your whoring wife you don't see you wife is a whore and you don't see everytime they want to go with your wife they send you away. You don't see how mumu you are that everytime they want to go with your wife they send you wey; you should a been dumb instead of you sister.”

6 It is contended by the plaintiffs that by the said words the defendant meant and was understood to mean that the second-named plaintiff was unchaste and habitually committed adultery during the absence of the first-named plaintiff; further that the second-named plaintiff has in consequence been seriously injured in her character, credit and reputation and has been brought into public scandal, odium and contempt and the first-named plaintiff has suffered damages.

7 On the other hand the defendant denies that he used the said words and say that what he said was as follows: “You going on just like a dummy, I don't know why you didn't dumb instead of your sister.”

8 It is admitted on all sides that the first-named plaintiff does have a sister who is dumb; it also appears that the taxi-men were not happy with the fact that the first-named plaintiff was operating a taxi from the airport and thereby cutting into their business.

9 The plaintiffs called one witness who basically supported their case, on the other hand the defendant celled two witnesses who also basically support his case.

10 I accept the evidence of the first-named plaintiff and the witness for the plaintiffs that the defendant used the said words. I find as a fact that the said words were use and I find as a matter of law and fact that the words are capable of a defamatory meaning and that they are defamatory and that the plaintiffs were defamed.

11 I have no doubt whatever that the plaintiffs were defamed as alleged, and that by the said words the defendant meant and were understood to mean that the second-named plaintiff was unchaste and habitually committed adultery during the absence of the first-named plaintiff and that the said words would be so understood and construed by members of the public and that as a consequence the second-named plaintiff would have been seriously injured in her character, credit and. reputation, would have been brought into public scandal, odium and contempt and that the first-named plaintiff suffered damages as a result.

12 Excluding the parties to the suit, it appears from the evidence that there were about 7–8 persons present at the time consisting of taxi-men and some employees at the airport inclusive of the witnesses called by the plaintiffs and the defendant.

13 In addition there might have been one or two passengers present. The first-named plaintiff says five but I do not accept the figure of five because the next flight would not have been until 3.00 p.m. and I do not conceive that at about 1.00 p.m. there would be that many passengers at the airport waiting to take a 3.00 p.m. flight.

14 The first-named plaintiff because of the nature of his work does have certain travel concessions, as a result he travels with some frequency. There is no dispute concerning the fact that he does travel the dispute is as to the frequency of his travels.

15 Mr. Hobson for the defendant among other things...