DC3003

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[In the District Court of Justice sitting in its Grade V civil Jurisdiction]

Complaint No: 21 of 2014

BETWEEN

Einstein Laris
Complainant

AND

Luke Magei
Defendant

Buka: Tasikul
2015: 26th February

CIVIL LAW:

CASES CITED:

COUNSEL:
Appearing for Complainant: In person
Appearing for Defendant: In person

JUDGEMENT

1.	BTASIKUL: The statement of claim  pleaded by complainant as I quote as follows;
i.	On the 17th March, an agreement was reached between the complainant and the defendant and a lease was signed in which it was agreed that the tenant shall lease or sub-lease the land to the owner.
ii.	The particulars of the said agreement is;
a.	Tenant to lease or sub-lease land to the owner for a term of the end of each month;
b.	Agreement for 15 years;
c.	That the owner will notify the tenant all proposed improvements on the property and that any improvement must be accordance with relevant authorities;
d.	Tenant will at all times keep in clean and tidy condition and maintain the property;
e.	Upon oath to purchase any improvement that may have been erected

iii.	The defendant made a verbal agreement with the complainant that if the building was to be completed and we start business, complainant to start payment ;
iv.	Defendant breach the agreement by asking complainant for rental as soon as building construction begins;
v.	Defendant forced complainant to complete the building and further took timber and hardware materials of the building amounting to K8200.00
vi.	The defendant owes the complainant the outstanding of K8,200.00
vii.	And complainant claims K8, 200.00 plus cost.

2.	 Briefly, the fact of the matter is;an agreement reaches between the parties for the complainant to construct a building at the defendant’s portion of land at new camp, Ieta village. When the complainant commenced constructing the house and a land dispute arose. After they went through settling the dispute the complainant was to continue building the house, however when he went to the construction site he found out that the defendant has removed all the building materials. 

3.	It is not disputed that the complainant did constructed the building at the defendant’s land. It is also not disputed that the materials that was used for the construction of the building was provided by the complainant. It is also not disputed that the defendant was the one who removed the building materials.

4.	What in disputed are; the year when construction began and the issue of rental? The defendant stated that the complainant constructed the building in 2005 and at the same year rental payment of K2000.00 was toocommenced as agreed by the parties. The complainant on the other hand denies and stated that he started constructing the building in 2010 and there was no agreement on the rental until the building was completed.

5.	In any business transaction like this, there must be a proper written agreementby the parties to safe guard their interest. The complainant statement of claim stated that there was a signed agreement between them on the 17th of March, 2010, however, there is no evidence produce to court nor there was no documentary evidence presented to court.

6.	If only there was a written agreement before the court than it will be easier to go by the agreement. Without a written agreement it will be difficult to prove claims like this.

7.	The defendant stated, the reason why he removed the building materials was because the complainant t failed to pay land rental fees from 2005 to 2011. 

8.	The issue now is; when did the complainant commenced construction of the building?

9.	The complainant testified that he was in Rabaul, East New Britain, and came to Buka in 2008. In2009 he started his small Poly Tech School in town. In 2010 he wanted to expand his school and was looking for land expends his school. In March, 2010 he approached the defendant and discuss with the defendant for a portion of land to build a house. The defendant agreed to give him a block at New Town. He paid K1000.00 as bond fee.

10.	It was supported by his wife and Basil who was his carpenter and also he supplied the complainant timbers for the building.They both testified that the construction of the building commenced in 2010.

11.	The defendant on the other hand testified that he ceased employment with the Bougainville Administration office in2004. The defendant approached him in 2005 and asks him to build a house. He agreed as he had an agreement with the complainant’s father sometimes back. He further testified that in the presence of his wife and the complainant and his wife they agreed that complainant to pay K2000.00 as rental fee.

12.	It is now the question of who is telling the truth. When accessing the evidence before me I find that some of the defendant’s evidence is inconsistent. For example he denies seeing or knowing the complainant’s wife and later he admitted saying that the complainant and his wife were present when the issue of rental fee was discuss at his residence.

13.	The defendant’s witness never says anything; all she said was what my husband told the court is the truth.  A witness in court must give evidence on his or her own account. You cannot rely on other person’s evidence because it is hearsay. 

14.	I find that the defendant was not telling the truth and I will accept the complainant’s evidence that the construction of the building begin is 2010 and not as stated by the defendant in 2005.

15.	The complainant is claiming K8, 200.00 the value of the materials which was removed by the defendant. For the complainant to claim K8200.00 he must provide evidence that he spent so much money for these materials. You cannot come to court and say I spent K8, 200.00 and the court should ward me for the loss. That is impossible you must justify your claim. There must be evidence to justify your claim. Evidence like receipts of where you bought the materials from. If you think it’s been over some years now you must get costs from hardware shops for the cost of those materials.

16.	I find that there is no evidence before me that you are entitle to K8200.00 which is the value of the material remove by the defendant. However, as it was not disputed that the defendant did removed the materials.

17.	I therefore on that bases I will award judgment against the defendant in the sum of K2000.00 to be paid within three (3) months.