Suva Businessman Krishneel Krishan Kumar has filed a formal appeal to the Fiji Court of Appeal challenging a recent High Court ruling that found him liable for defamation and ordered him to pay over $170,000 in damages to fellow businessman Alfaaz Malam.
The original case, heard by Justice Savenaca Banuve in the High Court in Suva, concluded on 4 September 2025 with judgment entered in favour of Mr Malam.
The court awarded $70,000 in general and aggravated damages, $100,000 in exemplary damages, and interest payments, along with a permanent injunction and an order for a public apology from Mr Kumar.
Mr Kumar, through his lawyers at Nambiar Lawyers, argues that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence, relied on hearsay, and failed to apply the correct legal test for defamation.
In his appeal, he claims that none of the plaintiff’s witnesses, including Mallam himself, could provide the exact defamatory words allegedly spoken, and that there was no clear evidence of publication to a third party.
The dispute centers on the ownership of a shipping container.
Mr Kumar claims he was the legitimate consignee of the container and made good faith inquiries about its whereabouts after it went missing.
He contends that such inquiries cannot amount to defamation, especially when made to police and shipping authorities.
The appeal argues that the trial court gave undue weight to speculative evidence and overlooked material contradictions in the plaintiff’s case.
It also asserts that the judge mischaracterised lawful business inquiries and police complaints as defamatory conduct, despite witnesses confirming that Mr Kumar never made any false or malicious statements.
Mr Kumar’s legal team also challenged the quantum of damages, calling the $170,000 award “manifestly excessive” given the lack of proof of actual loss, reputational damage, or business impact on the plaintiff.
Additionally, the appeal raises procedural concerns, alleging that the trial court relied on hearsay emails and failed to call critical witnesses.
Mr Kumar maintains that the High Court decision was contrary to law and the weight of evidence.
Court of Appeal will set a hearing date soon.
