Judge declines to strike out judgment in Kennedy Richards Jr's defamation claim

A High Court judge has dismissed a second application to set aside a defamation judgment in favour of PNM Point Fortin candidate Kennedy Richards Jr.

Justice Christopher Sieuchand had been asked by a political activist and a member of the Progressive Empowerment Party to set aside a May 2024 judgment in Richards’ favour after they failed to put forward their defence in his defamation claim. On April 14, he dismissed Renison Jeffery and Sheldon Khan’s application.

In July 2024, then High Court judge Eleanor Donaldson-Honeywell dismissed a previous application to set aside the default judgment.

The matter was re-docketed after Donaldson-Honeywell’s elevation to the appellate court. Jeffery and Khan filed a similar application, which Richards resisted, asking the judge to strike out the affidavit filed by the men’s attorneys in support of their request.

In her ruling, Donaldson-Honeywell held that it would not be in the interest of the claimant or the defendants to prolong the matter by not granting judgment in default. She also ordered damages to be assessed by a master.

In his claim, Richards complained of four videos posted by Jeffery on his YouTube page “WorksRights868” in October 2023. Khan was the co-host in one of the videos.

His lawsuit maintained that the statements made in the videos were inaccurate, misleading, disparaging, defamatory and malicious. It also said the sensational tone of the recordings were acts of reckless disregard and maliciously misinformed the public while alleging Richards was engaged in unprofessional conduct.

The lawsuit insisted that Richards, as a pilot, flight instructor, former mayor, councillor and having contributed to several parliamentary joint select committees during his tenure as MP from 2020, was qualified for public office and did not engage in corrupt practices.

“The claimant has since suffered much shame, distress, anxiety and embarrassment due to the allegations against his character, which are false, disparaging, defamatory and malicious in their intent, geared towards maliciously misinforming the wider public…”

The lawsuit contended the statements were malicious, false and published with an ulterior motive to further an agenda of character assassination against Richards. It also complained that the statements were made to scandalise Richards and instil a lack of trust, confidence, integrity and professionalism among his constituents, peers and the public.

The lawsuit also said the two, in November 2023, after receiving a pre-action letter from Richards’ attorneys, “gave an awkward and perplexing” response to the pre-action letter and instead of giving a “clear, unambiguous and sincere apology,” made a mockery of it and republished the defamatory statements. He sought damages, including aggravated, exemplary and special damages, an injunction to stop the two from republishing the statements, as well as a prominent apology and retraction.

Farai Hove Masaisai and Mpule Williams represent Richards.