DC787

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]

DCCi NO 2481 OF 2007

BETWEEN

GURU KOPI & KGB LIMITED
COMPLAINANT

AND

ALBERT NYANI
HEADMASTER, TUBUSEREA
PRIMARY SCHOOL
FIRST DEFENDANT

AND

TAU PERUKA
CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF MANAGEMENT
TUBUSEREA PRIMARY SCHOOL
SECOND DEFENDANT

Port Moresby: C.BIDAR, PM:

2008: 31 March
2008: 9 and 11 April

Counsel

Guru Kopi – Complainant in person
 J. S. Guava Lawyer for the Defendants

DECISION

11 April 2008

BIDAR, PM: The complainant’s claim in his Default Summons upon a Complaint for a civil debt is for a sum of Four thousand five hundred kina

(K4, 500.00) for professional services provided to the Tubuserea Primary School on a request of the headmaster Mr. Nyani and Mr. Sibona Karukuru the former chairman of the Board of Management. It was a verbal request since the complainant is local and may have children attending the school there (Tubuserea).

2. Mr. Nyani wanted some design work done for the school. The complainant (Mr. Guru Kopi) at the time was employed by EMSAVE JOINERY as engineering designer and estimator.

3. The request by Mr. Nyani had no blessing from the school board. It appeared to be a social request and since Mr. Kopi is a local from Tubuserea, he could assist free of charge just like, the Technical Advisory Group, led by professional engineers such as Messers Henao Badira and Vagi Gamoga from the village, who had provided a comprehensive and excellent "scope work" with no costs charged to the school

4. The professional services provided to the school, by way of provision of designs was done sometimes in April 2003 and designs delivered to the school on or about 12 May 2003. The invoice dated 5 October 2006 for the sum Two Thousand seven hundred kina and addressed to the Headmaster and chairman of the board requesting urgent payment. The question one would pose is, why wait for three (3) years and provide an invoice for payment. I find no explanation at all for such a long delay in providing the invoice to the school. 

The amount quoted in the invoice was Two Thousand seven hundred kina (K2, 700.00). The present claim is for Four Thousand five hundred kina (K4, 500.00).

5. The issues to resolve in my view are these:

1.	Whether or not a legally binding contract was entered into by the parties.

2.	If, so what are the terms of the agreement.

3.	If in fact a legally binding agreement existed was there a breach of any of the terms, which entitles the complaint to damages.

6. Reading the affidavits filed by the complainant as well as the defendants, the court finds that the casual conversation between Mr. Guru Kopi and Albert Nyani on or around April 2003 was merely a social arrangement. There was no offer made, which was accepted for a consideration. The social arrangement was not sanctioned by the Board of Management, the body that runs the school. In all the circumstances, the casual conversation upon which the complainant provided professional services and gave the designs the to school, did not amount to a legally binding contract.

7. The court is firmly of the view that no legally binding contract was concluded between the parties. The court finds in favour of the defendants.

8. The proceedings should be dismissed with cots to the defendants.

___________________________________________

Complainant appeared in person
John S, Guava, for the Defendants