The suit stems from a 2nd May, 2023 post made to Allen Chastanet’s Facebook page, which contained a video addressing the sale of a parcel of land at Bananes.
Awarding Frederick $60,000.00 in damages, the Court also issued a permanent injunction against Chastanet, preventing him, “his servants, agents, or otherwise, from republishing..the same or any similar defamatory allegations concerning the Claimant…”.
This is the latest in a string of legal defeats the Opposition Leader has faced in the last two months. First, Chastanet had lost his CCJ appeal against the Comptroller of Customs in the Dr Hilaire Range Rover matter; then, his judicial review claim against the CIP Board was quashed by the High Court, and now his assertions of corruption in the Bananes land sale have been deemed untrue by the Court.
Called as witnesses for Chastanet were Timothy Mangal, Guy Joseph, and Chastanet himself.
Of Mangal, the Court noted that “his evidence did not support [Chastanet’s] case,” at paragraph 62.
Joseph was “unable to point to any document or communication demonstrating wrongdoing,” (paragraph 64) and was “the least helpful witness. He offered political commentary rather than evidence of fact. Much of his testimony would attract little or no weight.”
Chastanet himself made many admissions under cross-examination that proved fatal to his defence against defamation. At paragraph 67, the Court reported:
“Under cross-examination, several significant concessions or inconsistencies
emerged:
1) He accepted he was not aware of the statutory framework governing NHC’s decisions.
2) He agreed that SLASPA had not made a purchase offer.
3) He accepted he did not verify the 2013 valuation.
4) He conceded that describing Parcel 51 as “a footpath” was his personal view, not a verified fact.
5) He accepted that it was not necessary for the land to be put out for tender or even if it was, for it to be sold to the highest bidder.
6) When pressed, he admitted that his accusation that the Claimant “lied” was based on his interpretation, not on any direct evidence.”
Chastanet ultimately “maintained his view, but could not establish a factual basis for the serious imputation of corruption or dishonesty.”
Frederick’s witnesses, which included former Prime Minister Stephenson King, the General Manager of the Saint Lucia Air and Seaports Authority, and the General Manager of the National Housing Corporation, were more credible.
“The Claimant’s witnesses were broadly consistent with each other and with documentary evidence,” the Court said at paragraph 72. “Where there is conflict between [Frederick’s] witnesses and [Chastanet’s] witnesses, I prefer the evidence of [Frederick’s] witnesses.”
The High Court Judge, Justice Pariagsingh, commented on the seriousness of the allegations made by Chastanet at paragraph 89:
“In any event, the combination of lying, concealment, misleading Parliament, and selling public lands at an undervalue that should never have been sold because it was required for use by a public authority (which I have found to be untrue), creates a narrative of impropriety that is, by itself, highly defamatory.”
The judge concluded subsequently: “I therefore hold that the words are defamatory of [Frederick] at common law.”