DC607

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

GFCi 18 of 2007

BETWEEN

MATHEW KUPUSILI
Complainant

AND

WAU AMBANE MOROKAI
Defendant

Goroka: M Gauli, PM
2007: June 07

CIVIL - Claims for reimbursement of expenses incurred in preparations for bride price where the marriage had been abandoned – Claims were determined and awards made by Village Court earlier – where a claim is litigated and determined in one count the same claim could not be litigated before another Court. 

Cases Cited
1. Carl Zeiss Stiftung –v- Rayer & Keeler Ltd (No 2) [1967] 1 A.C. 853

References
1. Village Courts Act ss. 96 (2) (3) & (4)

Counsel
For the Complainant	- In Person
For the Defendant	- In Person

07 June 2007

COURTS RULING

M Gauli, PM: The Complainant Mr. Mathew Kupusili claims against defendant Mr. Wau Ambane Morokai the sum of K10, 000.00 being for all his expenses incurred for the marriage of the Complainant’s daughter and the defendant on 28 December 2002 and in the years 2003 and 2006.

2. From the Statement of Claim of the Complainant stated that this claim had already been dealt with by the Village Court in Mt. Hagen. The relevant paragraphs are paragraphs 13 and 14. I restate these paragraphs as follows:

“13. With this huge burden on the complainant’s shoulders, he and his relatives took the defendant to a Mt. Hagen Village Court claiming bride price and the reimbursement for the expenses they incurred on the defendant.

14.	However the complainant was not satisfied with the outcome of the Village Court decision, in that a very insufficient amount was awarded to him. Therefore, the complainant considers a higher Court with wider jurisdiction to adjudicate on the case, hence this actions”. 

3. From these paragraphs it is very clear and without any doubt that the present claims now before this Court have already been determined by the Village Court in Mt. Hagen and awards made infavour of the complainant Mr. Mathew Kupusili. The Complainant filed his proceeding before this Court simply because the amount awarded by the Village Court was insufficient compared to his expenses.

4. The complainant did not come to this Court or bring this proceedings by way of appeal but as a fresh complaint. The complainant has chosen and brought his actions to a Village Court and that Court has determined and awarded judgment on his behalf. The fact that the amount awarded was insufficient as compared to his expenses, is not the reason to file fresh proceedings in the District Court for higher claims. When a person has decided the Court in which his action is to be determined and once that Court has determined and concluded the proceeding in that Court, he cannot commence fresh proceedings in another Court, which is a District Court in this case.

5. The Section 96 of the Village Courts Act 1989 applies to the situation such as the proceedings now before this Court, particularly subsections (2), (3) and (4). These provisions states as follows:

“(2)	Where a person has been tried for, and acquitted or convicted of an offence by a Village Court or other Court, he shall not be tried for the same offence, or for an offence that is substantially the same offence, by a Village Court.

(3)	When a matter has been dealt with by a Village Court, a plea of autrefois acquit, autrefois convict or res judicata is available in a court of summary jurisdiction in the same way as if the matter has been dealt with by another Court of summary jurisdiction.

(4)	Nothing in the proceeding provisions of this section prevents proceedings for relief (whether by way of compensation or otherwise) being taken in a Village Court or other court after a decision has been given in a Village Court or other court, where proceedings for such relief were not disposed of in the first proceedings.”

6. The Subsections (2) and (3) of Section 96 of the Act refers to the Criminal proceedings by the Village Court. My view is that these provisions also apply to the civil proceedings Subsection (4) above is directly relevant to the present case. This provision does allow the District Court to determine the proceedings for relief sought by the complainant, such as compensations or damages, if such reliefs have not been determined and disposed of by a Village Court. The Complainant in the present proceedings could not bring the relief been sought as those reliefs have already been determined and disposed of by a Village Court in Mt. Hagen.

7. I find that the principle of res judicata must be applied here. That is that once a matter or issue between the same parties had been litigated and decided, it cannot be raised again between the same parties. In the case of Carle Zeiss Stiftung –v- Rayner & Keeler Ltd (No. 2) [1967] 1 AC, 853, Lord Guest said at p. 933: “The rule of estoppel by res judicata, which is a rule of evidence, is that where a final decision has been pronounced by judicial tribunal of competent jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of the litigation, any party or privy to such litigation as against any other party or privy is estopped in any subsequent litigation from disputing or questioning such decision on the merits (Spencer Bower on Res Judicata, p. 3)”.

8. Once a final decision had been pronounced by a judicial tribunal having jurisdiction over the matter, it cannot be resurrected before another court of equal or higher jurisdiction. To do so would be seen to be an abuse of the judicial process. I am satisfied on the complainants own statement of claim that the relief he is seeking before this Court had already been determined and disposed of by the Village Court. And I make an order that the proceedings before this be dismissed.

For the Complainant – In Person
For the Defendant – In Person