Etude Guy Rivalland

News Banner

You are here:

Home»News»Devendranath Hurnam v. 1. Le Mauricien Ltd, 2. Gérard Cateau, 3. Josie Lebrasse

Devendranath Hurnam v. 1. Le Mauricien Ltd, 2. Gérard Cateau, 3. Josie Lebrasse

Devendranath Hurnam v. 1. Le Mauricien Ltd, 2. Gérard Cateau, 3. Josie Lebrasse Devendranath Hurnam v. 1. Le Mauricien Ltd, 2. Gérard Cateau, 3. Gilles Martial (Supreme Court - Court of Civil Appeal. Record No. 1278 and 1279) 16/10/2019

These two appeals relate to two cases which were heard together and for which a single judgment was delivered.

FACTS

The Appellant claimed damages following the publication of articles by the Respondent No.1 which the Appellant considered to be of a defamatory nature towards him and prejudicial to him.

MAIN ISSUES

First appeal

It was submitted that:

  • the learned judge of the Trial Court wrongly examined matters extraneous to the publication dated 26 December 2004 which the judge considered legitimate;
  • the learned judge of the Trial Court failed to decide whether or not one sentence mentioned in the disputed publication was asked by the appellant as a member of parliament which the judge considered not well founded;
  • the learned judge of the Trial Court refused to interpret the alleged analogy of the Appellant’s behaviour as depicted in the impugned parts of the publication with the conduct of TV serial characters convicted of criminal offences; 
  • the learned judge of the Trial Court failed to direct her mind to the Appellant’s legal and factual submissions which in any event were not pinpointed;
  • the trial Court was wrong to consider that the Respondents acted in the exercise of the freedom of expression guaranteed by section 12 of the Constitution of Mauritius and that the article contained fair comments made in good faith on a matter of public interest.

Second appeal

It was submitted on behalf of the Appellant that:

  • The learned judge of the Trial Court came to the conclusion that when the Appellant requested the rectification of the impugned publication to the Respondents in the following issue of the newspaper, the Appellant had the burden of proving his averments and failed to do so by not even explaining in evidence the rectification he had asked to the Respondents. In any event the judge considered that the above contention was not material and could not be deemed defamatory of the Appellant;
  • The trial Court was wrong to decide that the article was not defamatory of the Appellant in the light of the unchallenged evidence given by him with no rebuttal evidence from any of the Respondents;
  • The learned judge’s findings that the reporter had not disclosed the instructions that one Dabidin (an inmate) had alleged he had received from the Appellant are clearly perverse in the light of the words used in the impugned article. However, the learned judge was satisfied that the impugned extract in the article was not capable of conveying a defamatory meaning prejudicial to the Appellant.

DECISION OF THE COURT

All grounds having failed, the appeal was therefore dismissed.

Attorney for Respondents: Etude Guy Rivalland