DC7078
PAPUA NEW GUINEA.
[IN THE DISTRICT COURTS OF JUSTICE
SITTING IN ITS CIVIL JURISDICTION]
DCC NO: 27 /2020.

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

JULIE UVITO
Complainant.
.
AND.
SIMON AMBUI
Defendant.

Popondetta:	Michael W. Apie’e 

2021: November 11th.

CIVIL PROCEEDINGS. Claim for return of properties allegedly jointly purchased during existence of De-Facto Marriage between the Parties.
Evidence Act. No direct evidence established on Properties claimed

Cases Cited: 

References:
District Court Act.

Representation:
Complainant in person.
Defendant in person.
JUDGMENT ON TRIAL.
Background.

The Complainant filed suit and claimed in Her complaint of 19th of March 2020 that she was in a relationship with the Defendant as husband and wife for some time.
Later the Defendant entered into another relationship with another woman and removed her from the matrimonial home without her personal items such as clothes, kitchen utensils and other household items.
Now that her relationship with the Defendant is truly over, she seeks orders from the court for orders to recover her properties currently being held at the Defendants house.

Case hearing.

Defense case:

The Defendant gave her oral testimony on the 04/06/21 telling the court how their relationship started and that during the currency of their relationship, they jointly purchased the items she is claiming such as TV, Fridge, Kitchen Utensils, beddings and her clothes which she left in the house and escaped when the Defendant threatened and tried to hurt her.

And then on Friday the 16/07/21 she called one Kauna Reuben who only gave evidence vouching for the fact that the Parties were for all intents and purposes a married couple and that whatever items they might have purchased either jointly or otherwise was during the existence of their relationship and so they should sort it out.

She closed on that note.
Defendants case.

The Defendant gave his oral testimony on the 30th of July 2021 and in it he totally denied the Complainants claims stating that it was up to the complainant to provide proof of purchases of the items she is claiming as he was a working class man and he was responsible for the purchases as household items and has nothing to surrender to the Complainant.

He also testified of a village court hearing at the Kakandetta that was abandoned when the Defendant insisted to the Village court that the Complainant should verify the items she is claiming and the proof of purchases of such items. Thereafter the matter was further referred to the District Court.

Observations /Assessments. 

1. Having heard the evidence in this trial I make the following observations and assessments;

i.	Both Parties admit that they were in a relationship for a number of years.

ii.	However, it seems their relationship was akin to a Defecto Relationship with no bride price or dowry being exchange between them and their families.

iii.	However for all intents and purposes, their relationship was acknowledged by all concerned, especially the Complainants relatives, as related by Kauna Ruben, as a marriage.

iv.	The Parties maintained a household during their relationship and the Complainant left that house when their relationship ended in November of 2019 and walked out with only the clothes on her back according to her and with all her items according to the Defendant.

v.	She claims to have being partly or solely responsible for purchases toward the household she kept with the Defendant, and in her final statement in submission said that ‘The Defendant is in a relationship with someone else and so should return all the old items they purchased and acquired together and make new purchases for his new wife.

 2. Ruling to be based on assessment of Evidence.

i.	Section 146 of the District Court Act requires the Court to assess the Evidence tendered and relied on by the Parties and to make a Ruling on the matter.

146. COURT TO DECIDE CASE. The Court, having heard what each party has to say and the evidence adduced by each, shall consider and determine the whole matter, and shall make an order against the defendant or dismiss the complaint, or make an order against the complainant or dismiss the set-off, as the case requires.
ii.	In this matter, at the end of the Trial the Court having assess the whole of the Evidence resolves on the following;

a.	The Complainant has not itemized the items she is claiming fully.

b.	She has also not established proof of purchase on any of the items claimed.

c.	She has not established her case even in regards to her claim of K1000.00 given to the Defendant by her father.

d.	She however has established proof and such proof is admitted by the Defendant that they were in a relationship De Facto or otherwise for a number of years and such ended in November 2019.

iii.	The General Perception Common Law and also in Papua New Guinea, not only in custom but is everyday Papua New Guinea parlance is that a Relationship be it Statutory or Customary Marriage or even a ‘De-Fecto Marriage’  has value to the parties that engage in it.

iv.	In this case the companionship and comfort provided to the Defendant by the Complainant for however long their relationship was of value and ought to be appropriately compensated by the Defendant.

v.	One cannot be expected to walk into a long term relationship especially a romantic or sexual relationship and then walk out of it scot-free without some impact and effect on the parties, not to mention and the expectations that are lost.

vi.	The breakup was not mutual as evidence reveals that the Defendant threatened and chased out the Complainant from his house, before taking in another woman.

vii.	This type of unscrupulous behavior by men against women jumping from one relationship to another is happening too frequently in Papua New Guinea Society and needs to stop as such behavior in my opinion eats at the very fabric of our moral fiber as a National of people and we become less stable and morally strong as a Nation because of broken relationship and ultimately families. 

viii.	The Future and strength of any nation is found in its Families, and a man and woman getting together in a relationship is the start of the Concept of Family, thereby the Expectations of a Relationship lasting and growing is an expectation that one can reasonably have when in a relationship, so breaking that expectation must be frowned upon, in my opinion.

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

i.	On the Issue of Properties sough to be returned from the Defendant by the Complainant, no evidence has being provided to sustain that claim and so is refused.

ii.	However, on the issue of ‘A Relationship between them’, evidence from the Complainant and her witness Kauna Reuben and Admissions from the Defendant establish this fact.

iii.	If the Defendant sought to end this relationship and has effectively ended this relationship because of another woman, then he ought to rightly compensate the Complainant for the years of companionship and comfort she provided to the Defendant and also the Loss of Expectations the ending of this relationship, no doubt has on her

4. Accordingly, the Court will order as follows;

i.	The Complainants claim for Return of Property is refused.

ii.	However, the Defendant is found liable and Ordered to Appropriately Compensate the Complainant with K5000.00 for the years she lived with him and provided Comfort and Companionship, and also the Loss of The Expectation to continue living in that relationship with him indefinitely.

iii.	The Defendant is allowed 60 days until the 14th of October 2021 to settle the K5,000.00 order for compensation

iv.	In Default, Enforcement Proceedings to ensue against the Defendant.
	
Complainant in person.
Defendant in person.