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

Hifato v Havatu [2007] PGDC 100; DC634 (13 November 2007)

DC634

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

GFCi 32 of 2007

BETWEEN

KENIO HIFATO
Complainant

AND

ANITI HAVATU & 3 ORS
Defendants

Goroka: M Gauli, PM
2007: November 13

CIVIL - Claims damages for loss of business profit while attending Court proceedings in both the Village Court and District Court – No claims for damages for proceedings in the Village Court – In a modern business operations a records for business profits need to be proved.

Cases Cited

1. Graham Mappa –v- PNG Electricity Commission [1995] PNGLR 170
2. Kinsim Business Group Incorporation –v- Joseph Homwafi & 1 OR and the State N1634
   

References
Nil

Counsels
For the Complainant - In Person
For the Defendants - In Person

13 November 2007

DECISION OF THE COURT

M Gauli, PM: The Complainants Kenio Hifato claims K10, 000.00 in damages for loss of business profits arising out of the Court proceedings both in the Village Court and the District Court between 28 August 2006 and 26 June 2007. The complainant operates PMV business and he owns three PMV vehicles. The first defendant Aniti Havatu is the Complainant’s divorced wife.

2. In August 2006 a joint Village Court sitting in Henganofi District in the Eastern Highlands Province awarded K3, 000.00 compensation in favour of Aniti Havatu. Mr. Kenio Hifato paid K1, 000.00 of that order then appealed to District Court in Goroka. On 3 November 2006 the District Court upheld the appeal and referred the matter to Lowa No. 2 Village Court in Asariufa/ Goroka for rehearing. The Asariufa Village Court dismissed the proceedings and ordered the defendants (Aniti Havatu and others) to file fresh summons at the said Village Court. The defendants however filed fresh proceedings in Goroka District Court on 19 February 2007 on a case number Gr. 5 CV 05/2007. This proceeding was dismissed on 26 June 2007 for non-compliance to the Village Court order. In order to attend thee court proceedings the complainant used one of his PMV vehicle, and as a result that vehicle made losses for each days takings. And he claims the amount of K10, 000.00 in loss of business operations.

3. There is no provision in the Village Courts Act that allowed a person to claim damages for loss of business profit for attending proceedings in the Village Court. As no costs can be awarded in the Village Court proceedings equally a person could not claim damages for loss of business profit in those proceedings.

4. Generally in the District Court proceedings, costs are awarded and so damages in the nature of loss of profit while attending Court proceedings can be awarded as costs. In the present proceedings it is not a claim for costs but as a general claim for damages for loss of business operations in this modern business world. In the case of Graham Mappa –V- PNG Electricity Commission [1995] PNGLR 170, Justice Woods, as then he was said:

“This ruling therefore makes it clear that if you wish to establish matters like loss of profit from the operations of modern business then it is necessary to comply with modern law such as produce records as are required by law.”

5. In referring to the above case law, Acting Justice Bidar, in the case of Kinsim Business Group Incorporation –v- Joseph Homwafi & 1 OR and the State N1634 said:

“To claim loss of profit the plaintiff need to produce proper business records.”

6. I agree with the above case precedents that there is need to produce proper business records for the Court to be satisfied that the complainant could have made a business taking of so much on a particular day had the business operations not been effected by means of attending to Court proceeding. The complainant need to produce records of his daily takings. It is not sufficient to just claim that on a number of day the business operations were shut down in order to attend to Court matters and then claim substantial amount without proof.

7. I find that the complainant failed to establish by evidence including documentary evidence to prove his business loss of the profit while attending Court proceedings. He failed to provide in detail the number of days he was attending before the proceedings in the District Court particularly on the case number Gr. 5 CV 05 of 2007 to prove that he actually made profit loss that he claimed. I find that the evidence presented before this Court as insufficient. And I order that the case dismissed and the defendants discharged of any liability.

For the Complainant - In Person
For the Defendants - In Person