Josephine Huggins v SKN Choice Times Ltd et Al

• Jurisdiction: Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Judge: Gill J
• Judgment Date: 08 July 2024
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2024] ECSC J0708-3
• Docket Number: SKBHCV2022/0175
• Court: High Court (Saint Kitts and Nevis)

Between:

Josephine Huggins

Claimant

and

SKN Choice Times Limited

First Defendant

and

Dwight Cozier

Second Defendant

SKBHCV2022/0175

THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

Appearances:

Mr. Anthony E. Gonzalves KC with him Ms. Chauntelle Hobson for the Claimant

Mrs. M. Angela Cozier for the Defendants

Gill J

1 Following eight years of litigation, this claim in defamation has reached the stage of judgment after trial. Given the contentious history of this matter, there is no doubt that there is still some way to go.

2 On 9 ^th May 2016, the claimant Josephine Huggins (“Mrs. Huggins” or “the claimant”) filed a claim form and statement of claim alleging that an article published in the SKN Leewards Times Newspaper defamed her character. The claimant's case is that SKN Choice Times Limited (“the 1 ^st defendant” or “Choice”) and Dwight Cozier (“the 2 ^nd defendant” or “Mr. Cozier”) (together “the defendants”) falsely and maliciously wrote, printed and/or published, or caused or authorized or permitted to be written, printed and/or published, of and concerning her, and of and concerning her in her position as Cabinet Secretary in the then government of St. Kitts and Nevis, certain words defamatory of her.

3 The original newspaper was produced at trial and tendered in evidence. The full newspaper article reads as follows:

“Media houses requested to investigate payments, relationship

“ BASSETERRE, ST. KITTS (LPCU)

The independent media houses in St. Kitts and Nevis are been asked to look into two matters involving the Federation's Prime Minister Dr. Timothy Harris. “It is been said by the people of Tabernacle that a young man known to many as “Big T” Harris who happens to be the nephew of Timothy Harris is receiving EC$5,000 check every month from the government and he is claiming to be the butler of his uncle, Timothy Harris, the prime minister and also the gardener,” Leader of the Opposition, the Rt.Hon. Dr. Denzil L. Douglas disclosed on Wednesday. “As far as people in Tabernacle are aware, there is no hedge for him to keep. The entire yard is concreted. So what is he being paid for,” asked Dr. Douglas during Wednesday's edition of “Issues” on Freedom FM 106.5. He added: “While the Prime Minister's nephew is being paid $5,000 per month, PEP workers, trainees and others in the public service are been laid off.” “The Press should enquire into this,” suggested Dr. Douglas. Former Prime Minister Douglas also wants the media to look into the relationship between a Barbados construction company that built the temporary Basseterre High School (BHS) buildings and a Barbados national Lucille Moe, an advisor of Prime Minister Harris, who assisted in the recent election campaign. “Is there any relationship between Lucille Moe and the Barbadian company that was brought here and (PM) Harris must also explain if there is any special relationship, any special thing to be obtained as a result of the relationship between Lucille Moe, the Barbadian construction company and Timothy Harris himself the prime minister” said Dr. Douglas.Wednesday social media was abuzz with information that the Permanent Secretary in the Office of the Prime Minister, Mr. Osbert De Souza, has refused to approve a request by the Prime Minister that two high ranking police officers, Mc Arthur Browne and Adolph Adams, be paid EC$25,000. “for assistance with the installation of the new government.” It is reported that the Cabinet Secretary, Mrs. Josephine Huggins, eventually signed off on the prime minister's request.” (Emphasis added)

4 Mrs. Huggins takes offence to the segment highlighted above at the end of the article, which refers to her by name. In her statement of claim, Mrs. Huggins pleaded that the words complained of, in the context in which they appeared, in their natural and ordinary meaning, meant and were understood to mean that:

• (a) The claimant in her capacity as Cabinet Secretary approved the payment of state or public funds to two police officers for activities rendered by them, not to or for the state, but to benefit the political party or the parties that had been recently elected to form the new government.

• (b) The claimant had sanctioned or authorized the payment of public or state funds for a private and/or improper purpose.

• (c) The claimant had acted dishonestly and improperly.

• (d) The claimant is a dishonest person.

• (e) The claimant cannot be trusted with state or public funds.

• (f) The claimant was under the influence of the Prime Minister and did not exercise her own independent judgment in her capacity as Cabinet Secretary but capitulated or succumbed to the request of the Prime Minister to approve an improper payment of public funds.

• (g) The claimant is unfit to hold the office of Cabinet Secretary.

• (h) The claimant did not properly or honestly discharge her duties as Cabinet Secretary by approving the Prime Minister's request for an improper payment of public funds.

• (i) The claimant was involved in a corrupt activity.

• (j) The claimant is susceptible to corruption.

5 On 5 ^th April 2024, the defendants filed an application for determination on preliminary issues as to whether Choice and Mr. Cozier are proper defendants to the claim. They contend that the claim is unsustainable against them in the circumstances where the evidence is overwhelming that the wrong parties were sued. On the morning of the trial, learned counsel for the defendants, Mrs. Cozier, submitted to the court that the trial ought not to proceed without a determination of the preliminary point, and requested a written decision thereof. In light of the protracted battle that has occupied the court for the last several years, this court resisted further delay of the matter and determined that the preliminary issue would be dealt with as part of the trial. I note the defendants' relatively recent attempt at striking out the claim by an application, the crux of which was that the defendants are not the correct parties to the claim. On 15 ^th May 2023, that application was dismissed by Pariagsingh M, as he then was, highlighting disputes of fact to be determined at trial. In his judgment, the learned master referred to an earlier determination by Actie M, as she then was, to dismiss an application by Mr. Cozier where he relied on the separate legal entity principle to strike out the claim brought against him in his personal capacity.

6 In addition to the preliminary issue application, and in the event it does not succeed, the defendants raise the defences of fair comment, qualified privilege including the Reynolds principle, reportage and justification.

7 Apart from Mrs. Huggins and Mr. Cozier, the following witnesses testified at the trial:

• i. Donald Caines. Mr. Caines is the younger brother of the claimant. His evidence is that when he saw the article, he got a copy of the newspaper and went to his sister's house the next day. Over breakfast, he told her that she ‘should go and do something about the article because this is slanderous business’.

• ii. Petrona Thomas. Ms. Thomas, a long-standing public officer, referred to the claimant as her mentor and more than a friend to her. When she read the article, she felt distraught and hurt that Mrs. Huggins' name was being slandered.

• iii. Precious Mills. This witness was brought by the claimant by way of witness summons. Ms. Mills was a freelance reporter for the newspaper in question. When asked about the process that she undertook to submit articles that she wrote to the newspaper, she replied that she was given email addresses to which she sent the particular article. She denied that she ever received instructions from Mr. Cozier about anything to do with the process.

Issues

8 The court must determine:

• i. Whether the 1 ^st defendant SKN Choice Times Limited is a proper party to the proceedings as the publisher of the alleged libel;

• ii. Whether the 2 ^nd defendant Dwight Cozier is a proper party to the proceedings;

• iii. Being already determined that the words complained of are capable of having a defamatory meaning, whether they are in fact defamatory of the claimant;

• iv. If so, whether the defendants have proved any of the defences of fair comment, qualified privilege including Reynolds privilege, reportage and justification.

• v. If the defences fail, the quantum of damages to be awarded to the claimant.

Whether the 1st defendant SKN Choice Times Limited is a proper party as the publisher of the words complained of

9 In an action for defamation, the proper person to be sued as the defendant is the person who published the defamatory words or caused them to be published.1 Accordingly, the claim is brought against the defendants alleging that they published the offending words or caused them to be published. However, the defendants are asking the court to dismiss the claim on the basis that it must fail as the defendants are not the proper parties before the court.

10 On 31 ^st August 2022, the claimant applied to the court for an order for specific disclosure against the 1 ^st defendant Choice. The order was granted on 29 ^th September 2022 and in compliance with the order, Choice disclosed documents which, the defendants contend, make it clear that the wrong parties were sued.

11 The defendants explain that the documents disclosed material evidence that in 2012, there was a merger and acquisition that took place involving three companies namely, Leewards Media Group Limited, Ramsbury Properties Limited and Choice FM Limited. Thereafter, in 2012, the 1 ^st defendant Choice was formed for the purpose of refinancing an existing loan and acting as a holding company for Leewards Media Group Limited and Choice FM Limited.

12 The defendants submit that the documents disclosed proved that the claimant brought her claim against the wrong parties, because the owner and publisher of the...