Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Papua New Guinea District Court

Walep v Nombri [2004] PGDC 64; DC481 (6 December 2004)

DC481

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]

CASE NO 184 OF 2004

Victor Walep
Complainant

V

John Nombri T/S
First Defendant

Waghi Klos Pty Ltd
Second Defendant

Mt. Hagen: M.M. Pupaka
2004: 6th December

Counsel
The Complainant in person
Mr. Gonol for the Defendant

6th December 2004

M. M. PUPAKA: This matter was commenced seeking fast relief by way of injunctive and preventative orders. However it has turned out to be overly protracted and litigious. It is far from over and by the look of things, especially the clogged up court program, it would not likely get resolved in a reasonable span of time.

For the most part the proceedings have lost any sense of purpose. The main, and only, relief was specifically for temporary injunction. The complainant would, all going well, have liked the defendant to sell the property in question to him as allegedly agreed. In the meantime, he would rather the defendant be restrained from negotiating or contracting to sell the property to some one else. Nevertheless it is quite clear the complainant should have sued for specific performance instead of the herein stated relief.

There has, in my view, been much litigation, and quite needlessly so. It has been an exercise in frivolities and has been a complete waste of everybody’s time, including the Court’s.

Consequently I would order that these proceedings be dismissed and I would direct the complainant to issue substantive proceedings for the relief that he ought to have gone after in the first place – specific performance. The costs of this proceeding would become costs in the cause, and would be carried forward to be costs in the fresh proceedings the complainant must issue against the defendant. In the event that the complainant fails to issue fresh proceedings in the time specified, he will, at the insistence of the defendant, pay the defendant’s full costs of this current proceedings. Ergo the following orders are made.

1. This entire proceeding is dismissed as serving no useful and valid purpose in its current form and shape.

2. The complainant is directed to issue fresh proceedings by the end of January 2005 seeking, among any other relief at his discretion, specific performance.

3. The costs of this current proceeding shall become cost in the future proceedings the complainant is hereon directed to issue against the defendant.

4. In the event that the complainant fails to issue fresh proceedings as directed within the time specified, he shall, at the insistence of the defendant, pay the full costs of this current proceeding, which shall be taxed if not agreed to between the parties.

In Person: Complainant
Dowa Lawyers: Defendant