DC2041

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA
HELD IN KUNDIAWA

DC NO 01 of 2012

BETWEEN

KAWAGE SUINE
(Complainant/Applicant)

AND

MICHAEL TEINE
(Defendant/Respondent)

Magistrate: Josephine Kilage, Kundiawa
6th November 2012

Civil Court: In laws- verbal agreement involving a vehicle. Upon termination of a lease agreement is the Lessee able to claim to cost of repairs of a vehicle which was in his care? 
Case Law: 

Parties to proceeding: 
Mr Kawage Suine: Complainant appearing in person
Mr Michael Teine: Defendant appearing in person

Kilage-Bal 

Held: 

•	The Complainant is not entitled to the redress he seeks.
•	This case is dismissed. 
•	Complainant to meet defendants costs in this proceeding.

Ruling

•	The Complainant was given the Defendant's truck on a verbal agreement that he would use it until the Defendant asked for the vehicle back.
•	The vehicle was lent to the Complainant. There was no transfer of ownership. It is the property of the Defendant.
•	The return of the vehicle to the Defendant was not a breach of contract but the completion of the contract.
•	Therefore all cost and liabilities and revenue made during the 42 weeks the vehicle made while in the Complainant's custody were wholly the responsibility of the Complainant and not the Defendant.
•	Therefore the Complainant cannot claim for any reimbursement of monies spent on the vehicle as he also benefitted from the use of the vehicle while it was in his care. 
•	It can be said that the vehicle paid its own expenses and made money for the Complainant while it was in his care.
•	The Defendant has legal right to reclaim his vehicle.
•	The Complainant has not recourse. 
•	Case dismissed with cost awarded against the Complainant.

Facts: 

1.	Complainant daughter is married to the Defendant. They are in laws.

2.	The Defendant is a former teacher who is the son in law of the Complainant.

3.	Defendant used his retrenchment money to purchase a Hyundai H65 Truck in 2009.

4.	Due to misuse and mismanagement of the vehicle within his family the Defendant had several talks with his Father in Law to take the vehicle to his village and use it until the Defendant asked for his return.

5.	The vehicle was in the possession of the Complainant from March 2011 to 25th January 2012 when the Defendant's brother took the vehicle away.

6.	The Complainant states that he spent K8000.00 on the vehicle and he did not recoup the money before the Defendant took back his vehicle.

7.	The Complainant is claiming K10, 000.00 plus cost and interest according to statute.

The Defendant in his affidavit in Defense states that he gave the vehicle on mutual trust and confidence to the complainant and that the complainant had used the truck for 43 weeks. The vehicle was used as a PMV by the Complainant and that the complainant was the sole custodian of all monies collected from the PMV or hire of the truck. 

The Defendant states he was given K100 per week to buy food for the family and a total of K3000.00 was given to him in the 43 weeks. He further states that any repair work done to the truck while the truck was in the complainants custody was his responsibility upon common understanding. He states that the plaintiffs claims to have spent K8000.00 on repair work done to his truck while is kept all the proceeds of monies made from the PMV does not make sense.

I have gone through the invoices provided by the Complainant and note that this evidence is unreliable. The Complainant in some instances provided quotes and not the actual receipt of sale. I am of the view that the Complainant has not proven to the court that he has spent K8000.00 on repairing the vehicle. He has not provided receipts of sale to the amount of K8000.00.

Also the actions of the Complainant show that he knew that the Defendant, his son-in-law, was that owner of the vehicle. He paid the Defendant K100.00 per week as a form of payment for the use of his vehicle and he also paid the Defendant money when the defendant requested for additional funds. This shows that he knew that the vehicle belonged to the Defendant. 

Also the Complainants boss crew stated that during the coffee season they made good money making between K450.00 to K500.00 per day. This was for a period of two months. This meant that they made more than the K8000.00 claimed now in these proceedings. I am of the view that the Complainant made a lot of money during the 48 weeks the vehicle was in his care and that the vehicle was used to make that money. Therefore all profit, expenses and liabilities were covered by the money made by the vehicle.

The owner of the vehicle has every right to get the vehicle back. The defendant does not owe the complainant anything. 

For the above reasons I make the following orders.

1.	The Complainants summons and complaint filed and dated 7 March 2012 is dismissed for being frivolous and vexatious.

2.	The Complainant is to pay the cost of this proceeding of K970.00 to the Defendant.

J.Kilage-Bal
Magistrate