The husband of Elaine Chandra allegedly threatened to kill a registered bailiff during an encounter at True Mart in Navua, after the bailiff attempted to serve a writ of summons on Chandra at her Pacific Harbour residence in June last year.
This was revealed during the testimony of registered bailiff Mohammed Niyaz in the $1 million defamation suit brought by former Duavata News Editor Arnold Chanel against Chandra.
Niyaz told the court that he and Chanel had stopped at True Mart to get something to eat when Chandra and her husband, Sumit, arrived and confronted them.
He alleges that both Chandra and her husband used vulgar language, while Sumit slammed the table and threatened him, saying, "I will kill you."
Niyaz says both Chandra and Chanel were filming the encounter.
He told the court that Chanel had hired him to serve a writ of summons on Chandra at her Pacific Harbour residence in June last year.
Niyaz says Chanel accompanied him to Pacific Harbour and pointed out Chandra's house from about 100 metres away.
He says he approached the residence and called out before a woman came out and asked why he was there.
Niyaz says the woman told him Chandra was inside with her children and that she would inform her of his arrival.
He says the woman later returned and asked him to wait on the verandah.
Niyaz told the court that Chandra met him about a minute later, and he explained the purpose of his visit.
He says Chandra examined the document and asked how he knew where she lived.
Niyaz alleges that Chandra then walked towards the road, swearing in Hindi, before throwing the document at the parked vehicle.
Chanel's lawyer, Kunal Singh, asked whether Chanel had entered Chandra's compound at any point or whether there had been any physical altercation, to which Niyaz said neither had occurred.
He says he then left the document at the gate before they departed.
During cross-examination, defence lawyer Mohammed Saneem asked Niyaz whether he had questioned Chanel about why the couple accused him of harassing them.
Niyaz says he had not.
Saneem then asked whether Sumit had lunch with them, which Niyaz denied, saying Sumit had walked outside with him.
The defence lawyer also questioned whether Sumit later returned to the table to apologise.
When asked whether Sumit sat next to Chanel, Niyaz says he could not remember where Sumit sat but recalled what he ate.
Saneem then questioned whether Niyaz's appearance at Chandra's residence could have alarmed her, prompting an objection from Singh.
When asked whether he had shown any identification during the visit, Niyaz says he only presents his identification when requested.
Meanwhile, during the continuation of Chanel's cross-examination, Saneem questioned him about his responsibility as Editor and how a video he recorded ended up on social media.
Saneem asked Chanel where the buck stops, reminding him that as Editor last year, the responsibility rested with him.
He then questioned how the viral video, which Chanel recorded on his phone, ended up on the Facebook page TikTok Police and Transparency Fiji.
Chanel says he is not aware of how the video ended up on the page.
When pressed on whether he had shared the video with the page, Chanel says he had previously shared it with a few friends.
During re-examination by his lawyer Kunal Singh, Chanel clarified that they were not harassing anyone but were reporting newsworthy stories.
The case continues today.
