Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback National Court of Papua New Guinea

Pora (trading as Office Equals) v Akena [2025] PGNC 424; N11532 (17 October 2025)

N11532

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

WS 399 OF 2011

BETWEEN:
ELIZABETH PORA trading as “OFFICE EQUALS”
First Plaintiff

PAUL PILIMBO PORA
Second Plaintiff

AND
ELIJAH AKENA
Defendant

MT HAGAN: CROWLEY J
10, 16, 17 OCTOBER 2025

CIVIL – Injunction- - seeking restraint of threats of violence & property damage– quia timet injunction- imminent danger to plaintiffs rights-substantial or irreparable damage imminent- violation of rights inevitable

Facts

The first and second plaintiffs are married. They are business people. They bought a Writ of Summons claiming breach of contract against the defendant. The material discloses that the contract was for the purchase of timber milling equipment. The equipment would be paid for piece-meal over the period of several years. After a year or so the defendant began to reclaim or attempt to reclaim some pieces of machinery claiming non-payment. This involved the defendant attending without consent the plaintiff timber mill. The plaintiffs alleged this was accompanied by threats and abuse towards them at their residence. They bought a Notice of Motion seeking an interlocutory injunction to restraint the behaviour of the defendant pending the determination of the Writ of Summons

Held:

The defendant’s behavior demonstrated an imminent danger to the plaintiffs’ rights. This prospective damage was very substantial or irreparable and the violation of the plaintiffs’ rights was inevitable.

Cases cited
Pyawa v Nunwa [2010] PGNC 147; N4143
Medaing v Ramu Nico Management (MCC) Ltd [2011] PGSC 40; SC1144

Counsel
Mr D Paim, for the plaintiffs

1. CROWLEY J The first and second plaintiffs are married. They are business people. The first plaintiff provided an affidavit filed 10 September 2025. In that she describes how, around 24 January 2019, they entered into a verbal agreement with the defendant to buy timber processing and milling machines. The equipment was sold on an “as is where is”. The total cost was to be K1,200,000.00. That amount was to be paid by instalments. There was an upfront payment of K200,000.00 with the balance paid periodically until the residual was paid off.
   
2. The evidence before me is that problems began in June 2021 where on the 28th of that month the defendant removed a piece of equipment worth K280,000. He did this without the permission of the plaintiffs.
   
3. The affidavit continues: “On 1 December 2022 the Defendant then wrote to my husband and I threatened us that he will remove more equipment and he made further verbal and written threats thereafter”.
   
4. On 26 January 2024 the affidavit describes how the defendant attended the first and second plaintiffs’ timber mill and tried to remove more equipment. This time using a crane. On 14 March 2025 the defendant apparently with his sons and the police broke the locks on the plaintiffs’ premises again, tried to take equipment away using a crane.
   
5. The affidavit from the second plaintiff filed on 12 September 2025 deposed to the same incidence.
   
6. The Plaintiffs commenced litigation by way of a Writ of Summons filed on 12 September 2025. At the same time, they bought a Notice of Motion primarily seeking that the defendant be restrained from making threats, attending their sawmill and residence.
   
7. The matter came on before me as urgent on 10 October 2025. I was not satisfied regarding the evidence of service or attempted service. Further, the supporting affidavits did not depose to any recent threats of violence, though I was told from the Bar table that there were recent threats and intimidating behaviour.
   
8. I adjourned the matter for a week to allow the plaintiffs to file more material addressing my concerns.
   
9. By 16 October when the matter came back before me two further affidavits have been filed. They were an affidavit of service of policeman Steven Philipo filed 10 October 2025. That affidavit identified that on Monday 22 September 2025 the writ of summons was handed to the defendant at the Mt Hagan Police Station. The defendant refused to accept it and walked out of the office.
   
10. An Additional Affidavit was filed by Paul Pilimbo on 14 October 2025. That affidavit deposed to an incident that occurred on 9 September 2025 at 11am at the first and second plaintiffs’ residence. The defendant and some associates shouted, made noise and shook the front gate. They demanded money.
    
11. On 10 September 2025 at 7:30am. The defendant was with his two sons. He again shouted, shook the gate and demanded money. The police were called. Though the defendant did not initially leave when confronted by police, he eventually did.
    
12. On 11 October 2025 the second plaintiff had a conversation with the Station Commander of Mt Hagan Police station. He was told by the Station Commander that the defendant had telephoned and said that he intended to murder the first plaintiff.
    

Law

13. The first and second plaintiff seeks an injunction pursuant to Order 4 Rule 49(5)(ii)(a) of the National Court Rules. That provides that for the making of urgent ex parte applications. The court has power to grant interlocutory injunctions. They are discretionary in nature.
    
14. In Pyawa v Nunwa [2010] PGNC 147; N4143 (11 October 2010) Justice Makail explored the principles of a quia timet injunction. At paragraph [8] his Honour said:
    

A quia timet injunction is granted to stop an act or event from happening in future and the Courts have been extremely reluctant to grant injunctions of this nature because no-one knows when the act or event will happen. The Courts require very strong evidence to show that it will occur if they do not act.

15. In paragraph [11], his Honour set out the criteria for the granting of a quia timet injunction:
    

1. There must be proof of imminent danger to the plaintiff's rights.

2. There must be proof of prospective damage which is very substantial or irreparable.

3. The violation of the plaintiff's right is inevitable.

16. That test was approved by the majority of the Supreme Court in Medaing v Ramu Nico Management (MCC) Ltd [2011] PGSC 40; SC1144 at para [63].
    

Application to the facts

17. Based on the affidavit material before me the plaintiffs have been subjected to ongoing harassment from the defendant which has involved trespass, destruction of property, abuse and threats. The regularity of the defendant’s harassment particularly in September and October 2025 (and his phone call to the Station Commander) suggest that the plaintiffs’ rights are imminently in danger.
    
18. The persistence of the behaviour and the threat of future harm to the first plaintiff satisfies me there is prospective danger which is inevitable. The threat to murder could euphemistically be described as “very substantial or irreparable”.
    
19. As such I am minded to grant the application for an interlocutory injunction that will last until the proceedings have been finalised.
    

ORDERS

1. That the defendant, his family, associates, agents or other persons acting on his instruction be restrained from threatening or abusing the Plaintiffs physically or verbally whether in person, by telephone, letter or other electronic communication until the determination of these proceedings.
   
2. That the defendant his family, associates, agents or other persons acting on his instruction, be restrained from going within 50 metres of the plaintiffs residence and/or the timber milling plant at Kimininga Village, Mt Hagan, the leased area of late Pastor Berry Tina until the determination of these proceedings

__________________________________________________________________
Lawyers for the plaintiff: Daniel Piam Lawyers