DC7070
PAPUA NEW GUINEA.
[IN THE DISTRICT COURTS OF JUSTICE
SITTING IN ITS CIVIL JURISDICTION]
DCC NO: 28/2021

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

PETRA HARA
Complainant.
.
AND.

ABBY PEE NAIYE
Defendants.

Popondetta:	Michael W. Apie’e 

2021: November 11th.

CIVIL PROCEEDINGS. Claim compensation for Un-Lawful Termination.

Cases Cited: 

Ruhuwamo v. PNG Ports Corporation (2019) N8021

References:
District Court Act.
Employment Act

Representation:
Complainant in person.
Defendant in person.

JUDGMENT ON TRIAL.
Background.

1.	The Complainant Petra Hara files action against the Defendant in her action of 19/11/20 and seeks the following orders;

i.	Finding of Unlawful Termination against the Defendant.
ii.	Orders for K10,000. 00 in damages against the Defendant for her unlawful termination.

2.	The Complainant is aggrieved by the Defendant in that she claims that on the 01/10/2020, at 4.00pm, Unjustifiably terminated her from her employment with him or his company, namely YC Supermarket Shop in Popondetta.

3.	Her Claim is in turn supported by an Affidavit she deposed on the 17/03/21. 

4.	The Defendant filed a Notice of Motion dated 24/04/21 seeking summary dismissal of the Complaint due to claimed Defects, and with it he also filed an affidavit in Support of even date.

5.	The matter came before me on the 24/08/21 for the hearing of the Defendants Notice of Motion and he moved his Notice of Motions and raised the following;

i.	Moved motion on the basis of filed Notice and Affidavit in Support dated 24/04/20.

ii.	The Complainant was never locked up at any time.

iii.	The Complainant was never forced to have Sex at any time by the Defendant let alone touch her private Parts.

iv.	Complainant worked for the Defendant for 3 years.

v.	She tried to make a complaint to Police about the allegations of Sexual harassment but was refused by Police.

6.	In response to the Notice of Motion the Complainant merely accused the Defendant of denying everything and making false statements.
	
Observations.

7.	The Ability to make Summary determinations of cases before it is a power reserved by the District Court in its case management functions under section 22 of the District Courts Act, and such determinations can be made either upon applications being made by parties as in this case, or even sometimes at the volition of the Court itself.

8.	The Complainant claimed K10,000.00 as total damages for Unlawful Termination by the Defendant in her claim of 19/11/20, but in her affidavit of 17/03/21, she also made allegations of Sexual Harassment such as attempted sexual contact by the Defendant and also sexual touching of her private parts. These are serious allegations that ought to have being reported in the first place to concerned authorities instead of mentioning them in passing like an after-thought.

9.	Her claim of Unlawful termination against the Defendant is Prima Facie/ On face value dealt a fatal blow by the Letter from the Acting Provincial Labour Officer Ms. Melva Kubu on the 20/10/20 annexed to the Complainants own affidavit of 17/03/21 as annexure ‘A’.

10.	In my experience both as a Lawyer previously and also as a Magistrate, the Labour Department being the Custodian of Labour/Employee’s rights would normally make accurate proclamations of whether any Particular Terminations is Lawful or Unlawful, and in most instances their proclamations would be borne out by the evidence.

11.	In this instance the Complainant has not produced any Evidentiary materials or suggestions as to why the Labour Officers refusal to classify her termination as “Unlawful” is wrong and should not be accepted by the Court.

12.	On face value, the Labour Officers letter of 20/10/20 seals the deal for the Complainant, and makes her claims untenable before this Court. 

13.	In a similar case of Unlawful Termination that came before me in this court earlier this year namely Michae Pojari v. Price Rite Enterprise Ltd, DCC No: 31 /2021, the Labour Officer in that case had also written a Letter Proclaiming that the said Michael Pojari’s termination by Price Rite Enterprise management was ‘Not Unlawful’. In that case I refused the Complainants claims of Unlawful Termination. 

14.	The Decision and discussion by Justice Royale Thompson in the case of Ruhuwamo v. PNG Ports Corporation (2019) N8021 is pertinent to this case in that in the extreme even if not reasons are offered for the termination, the Defendant Employer would still have been somewhat excused, however in the current case the reason for the termination were amply made clear to the Complainant.

15.	The manner of the Notice of Motion by the Defendant has more or less brought the ultimate Trial in the case of Petra Hara v. Himself to a head sooner and so the court by virtue of determining and Adjudicating on the Notice of Motion makes a Ruling/Judgment on the Substantive matter.

16.	In the final Analysis, the Court finds and Rules as follows that;

i.	The Application by the Defendant in his Notice of Motion dated 29/04/21 is based on section 22 of the District Courts Act and so is rightly made before this court.

ii.	The District Court is therefore empowered under Section 22 of the District Court Act to deliberate on and Adjudicate on the matters raised herewith.

iii.	Complainant has claimed ‘Unlawful Termination’ but such claim is denied by the Labour Department through its Acting Provincial Labour Officer.

iv.	The Complainant raises multiple issues like Sexual Harassment in her affidavit of 17/03/21, but she did not plead that in her claim filed in 29/11/20 thereby raising doubt on the overall veracity of her claims

v.	Looking at the ‘Lay of the Land’ insofar as the totality of this case is concerned, it is the summary adjudication of this Court that the Complainant has not offered a compellable case against the Defendant insofar as her claims are concerned.

vi.	The Complainant should rethink and consider her case properly before proceeding next.

vii.	The Claims she has lodged currently have defects and shortcomings that cannot be cured even with a full hearing.

17.	Accordingly, the Court Adjudges and will Order as follows;

i.	The Defendants notice of Motion is approved.

ii.	The Complainants Claim(s) is refused in its entirety.

iii.	Since the Parties are unrepresented by Legal Counsel, no orders will be made on costs.
	
Complainant for himself.
Defendant for himself.