Full Court strikes out local cricketer’s lawsuit against Guyana Times

The Full Court has overturned a High Court decision against Guyana Times and struck out a defamation lawsuit filed against the newspaper by local cricketer, Keon Joseph.
Back in 2022, Joseph filed the defamation lawsuit against Guyana Times, its editor-in-chief, the Guyana Cricket Board and GCB’s then Chief Selector, Ravindranaught Seeram over an article published in the newspaper.
In the article, Seeram was quoted saying that Joseph was not a “team man” and that his “behavior towards the team as not that great”.
After the lawsuit was filed, Guyana Times, through its lawyers – Attorneys Devindra Kissoon and Natasha Vieira, filed a Notice of Application in April 2023, asking the court to strike out the Statement of Claim (SOC) or alternatively, rule that the meaning of the words complained of, were not capable of having a defamatory meaning or meanings attributed to them.

However, the trial judge, Justice Fidela Corbin-Lincoln, in a December 6, 2023 decision, refused to grant the application. Hence, the appealed was filed in the Full Court of the High Court.
The thrust of the appeal is that the High Court judge erred by finding that that the words complained of by Joseph or their natural and ordinary meanings were capable of the defamatory meanings as claimed. The Appellants also contended that the judge, in finding that the words complained of were defamatory, erred by applying the International Cricket Code of Conduct for Players (ICCC).
The Full Court was tasked with determining: (1) whether the words complained of or their natural or ordinary meanings were capable of the defamatory meanings; and (2) whether the judge in determining that the words complained of were capable of the defamatory meanings erred by applying the ICCC.
The appeal was heard by Justices Priya Sewnarine-Beharry and Sandil Kissoon. On Thursday last, Justice Sewnarine-Beharry delivered the ruling.
In her decision, she cited a 2016 case in which the court gave judicial guidance in determining whether the words complained of bear the meaning(s) pleaded. In applying those principles to this case, Justice Sewnarine-Beharry found neither the words pleaded nor their natural or ordinary meanings were capable of the defamatory meanings.

“The natural and ordinary meanings of the words complained of were merely the professional opinion of a Chief Selector on the reason for non-selection of a cricket player. This cannot be defamatory since the risk of non-selection is an inevitable part of sporting competition. The words complained of were excerpts from the whole article and were incapable of lowering Joseph’s reputation in the minds of reasonable persons and there was no imputation of incompetence in his profession.”
“Further, no reasonable person would construe the words complained of in their context as conveying the meanings pleaded by the Claimant [Joseph] or conclude that the Claimant’s attitude caused any demise to his team or the cricket games. It is noteworthy that there was no averment in the SOC that Joseph suffered harm which had the tendency to injure him in his profession,” the judge ruled.
According to Justice Sewnarine-Beharry, words which merely injure feelings or cause annoyance but which in no way reflect on the character or reputation or tend to cause one to be shunned or avoided or expose one to ridicule are not actionable as defamation.
“I do not find that the words complained of and/or their natural and ordinary meanings are capable of the defamatory meanings pleaded,” she ruled.
On the issue of applying the ICCC, Justice Sewnarine-Beharry found that the High Court judge ought not to have considered the ICCC but only the words pleaded in the SOC. The ICCC was not pleaded or alluded to by Joseph in the SOC. Further it does not appear that the ICCC was applicable since Article 1.5 of the Code specifically sets out that the ICCC applies to International Matches or International Tour matches.
The Full Court judge stated that, “Nowhere in the SOC was it pleaded that Joseph was participating in an International Match, International Tour Match or that he was not selected for any ICCC Match. In relying on ICCC, [Justice Corbin-Lincoln] took into consideration irrelevant matters and fell into error.”
Moreover, Justice Sewnarine-Beharry pointed out that while Joseph relied on innuendo, he failed to provide sufficient particulars of the facts and matters relied on in support of his claim as required. She said there was absolutely nothing in the SOC to support any extended meaning beyond the natural and ordinary meaning of the words complained of.
On this note, the Full Court judge found that the cricketer’s “…claim is frivolous and vexatious” and does not meet the threshold of seriousness as set out in other cases.
In light of these findings, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside Justice Corbin-Lincoln’s decision.
The Full Court also issued an order, striking out the Statement of Claim of Keon Joseph filed against the Appellants, the Second and Third Respondents. It ordered that “the words complained of are NOT capable of having a meaning or meanings attributed to them in the Statement of Claim” and that “the words complained of are NOT defamatory of the Claimant”.
Joseph was also ordered to pay costs to Guyana Times and the other respondents to the tune of $250,000 each on or before September 16, 2024. Joseph was represented by attorney, Darren Wade.