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

Mendi v Yer [2013] PGDC 3; DC2044 (29 November 2013)

DC2044

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA
HELD IN KUNDIAWA

DC NO 09-10 of 2012

BETWEEN

MICHAEL MENDI
(Complainant)

AND

MICHAEL YER
(First Defendant)

AND

SIMBU PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT
(Second Defendant)

Magistrate: Mrs Josephine Kilage, Kundiawa
29 November 2013

Civil Court: Complainant seeks damages of K3700.00 for non payment of the hire of his vehicle by the Defendants.

Court Process: Matter was first heard on 27th March 2012. Neither party was present. Matter adjourned to 24 April 2012 for Mention. On 24 April 2012 both parties did not appear. Matter adjourned sine dei since 25 April 2012. No appearance of both parties since 27th March 2012. Both parties were informed by way of public notice to come to the court to refute or claim the damages sought. This matter is now being heard with the view of summarily disposing it.
Court notice has been given to both parties to attend to court today. Neither party attended court today.

Law: Section 88, Section 89, Section 90, Section 91 of the District Courts Act

Parties to proceeding:

Mr Michael Mendi: No appearance
Mr Mark Yer & Simbu Provincial Government: No appearance

Corum: Mrs Kilage-Bal

Held:

➢ The Complainant has not appeared to proceed with this case since filing of the summons on 27th March 2012.

➢ This case is dismissed for want of prosecution.

Ruling

➢ Case dismissed for want of prosecution.

Facts:

1. Complainant filed a summons on 7th March 2012 against the Defendants for the non payment of hiring of his vehicle for a three week period in May 2003.
   
2. The First Defendant is the person whom the complainant alleges received his cheque and never gave him the money.
   
3. The Second Defendant is the employee of the First Defendant.
   
4. The matter was first mentioned on 27th March 2013. On that day both parties did not appear.
   
5. There is no proof of service attached to the file to show that the Defendants were served with their copy of the summons. The matter was adjourned to 25 April 2012.
   
6. On 25 April 2012 the matter was mentioned and again neither party appeared before the court. On that day I adjourned the matter sine dei and ordered that the complainant was to come to the Registry and see the Clerk of Court and get a new date for the matter to be mentioned.
   

Ratio Decidendum:

On 25th of April 2012 there was no appearance by either party so I had the matter adjourned sine dei. I ordered that the complainant would approach the counter and see the Clerk of Court for a new date for the matter to be mentioned. This is to determine whether the complainant was serious in pursuing his matter as he had not appeared once in court to seek the redress he was seeking.

From 25th of April 2012 to 29th November 2013 the complainant has not come to the Registry to have a new date set for this matter to be mentioned. Since the first mention until today the complainant has not appeared in court. This is a prolonged matter where the complainant has shown no sign of proceeding with the matter.

For the above reasons I make the following order:

Order:

The Complainants summons and complaint filed and dated 2nd March 2012 is now summarily struck out for want of prosecution.

J.Kilage-Bal-Magistrate