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

Ongapa v Mitio [2004] PGDC 72; DC630 (13 October 2004)

DC630

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE
SITTING IN ITS CIVIL JURISDICTION]

DCCi 421 of 2004

BETWEEN

LINDSAY ONGAPA
Plaintiff

AND

RICKY MITIO
First Respondent

AND

COFFEE INDUSTRY CORPORATION
Second Respondent

Goroka: G Vetunawa
2004: September 27; October 11, 13

Cases Cited
Nil

References
Nil

Counsel
Plaintiff: Present in Person
Respondent: Present in Person

RULING ON THE APPLICATION TO ASIDE THE EXPARTE ORDER OF 3RD SEPTEMBER 2004

G Vetunawa: This is an application to set aside the Exparte order made on the third of September 2004. In the Exparte order the respondent Coffee Industry Corporation was ordered to pay salaries and housing allowance and in lieu of the three months notice.

2. The applicant argued it had subsistance defence in the case saying there was no need to give three months notice as the explain date of the contract was clear to both parties. I do not accept that argument. Before I explain I shall outline the two basic categories of contract. The first category is that of no renewable contract. Non-renewable contract is a contract which specifically states as part of its terms that the contract will not be renewed when it expires. The issue of renewal does not arise and the officer does not need to give any notice of either of the non-renewability or renewability of the contract because as I have mentioned above that issue does not exist between the parties. The second category is that of renewable contract. In renewable contract the issue of renewability or non-renewability does exists and so the officer need to give notice to inform the officer of whether the contract is renewed or not renewed.

3. In this case the contract and is a renewable contract therefore the respondent as the offeror has a legal duty to give notice informing the plaintiff that his contract has not been renewed. This is a basic employment right which must be upheld in Papua New Guinea as a democratic state. The plaintiff as an employee has the right to be informed. Therefore the respondent has breached this basic employee right to be informed of the non-renewability of his contract and so the respondent is held liable for the breach of that employee right to be informed.

4. Application to set aside the Exparte order is not granted and the Exparte order remains in full force.

Plaintiff: In Person
Respondent: In Person