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

Tanake (trading as ST JK Stationery) v Pundau [2025] PGNC 492; N11653 (19 December 2025)

N11653

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

WS 1100 OF 2016

SERR TANAKE
trading as ST JK STATIONERY
Plaintiff

v

PATRICK PUNDAU
Defendant

WABAG: ELLIS J
19 DECEMBER 2025

REVIEW – Constitution, s 155(3)(a) – multiple writs for levy of property issued, seeking to recover more than K200,000 in relation to claim based on debt of K3,000 – clear errors in default judgement, certificate of costs, garnishee order, and issue of writs for levy of property – plaintiff’s case redetermined – judgement for K6,000 inclusive of interest and costs

Cases cited
No cases are cited.

Counsel
Serr Tanake, the plaintiff, in person
Patrick Pundau, the defendant, in person

JUDGMENT

1. ELLIS J: On 3 October 2025, when there was a call-over of the entire civil list in Wabag, the plaintiff said there was a remaining matter which required consideration in relation to these proceedings. For that reason, it was listed for consideration on 24 November 2025.
2. On that occasion, it was indicated that the plaintiff had already obtained three writs for the levy of property, the last one being issued on 18 November for more than K200,000, despite the basis of these proceedings being an unpaid invoice for K3,000.
   
3. A consideration of the entire Court file revealed the following errors:

(1) The evidence did not support the amount of K20,250 referred to in the default judgment dated 22 March 2018.

(2) The plaintiff submitted a Bill of Costs seeking K46,398.05 and a Certificate of Taxation was issued for K24,123.55 on 28 May 2018. The amount shown in that certificate included:

(a) K3,000, which was the invoiced amount upon which the proceedings were based, plainly note an item of costs, plus

(b) K10,125, being half the judgment debt, plainly not an item of costs, plus

(c) K5,250 for interest at the rate of 25% per month, plainly not an item of costs, plus

(d) amounts in response to legal costs, despite no supporting document and nothing to suggest the plaintiff ever used a lawyer; plus

(e) amount in relation to the time spent on the proceedings by a self-represented litigant, and

(f) claims for photocopying totalling K129 which was the only amount that should have been awarded.

(3) The garnishee order made on 12 January 2024 correctly specified that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the judgement amount, plus interest and costs, but did not indicate the amount the plaintiff was entitled to recover.

(4) The first writ for levy of property, that was issued on 14 January 2025, specified an amount payable of K197,460.01 plus costs of K6,000, giving a total of K203,460.01, plus interest at 8% from 12 January 2024 and K250 which was said to be the cost of the writ.

(5) On 17 January 2025 the Deputy Chief Justice gave leave to the plaintiff to withdraw that writ.

(6) On 2 May 2023 a second writ for levy of property was issued by the registry which suggested the plaintiff was “authorized by law” to recover K98,086.95 (an amount that include interest), plus K250 said to be the cost of that writ, plus K16,000 for “increased interest” and an amount of K8,565 described as “District Court garnishee order”.

(7) An affidavit in support of that writ suggested that a total amount of K222,275.50 was payable by the defendant to the plaintiff in relation to the original invoiced amount of K3,000.

(8) A third writ for levy of property was issued by the registry on 18 November 2025 for (a) K197,460.01, said to be payable under the garnishee order dated 12 January 2024, (b) K250 said to be the cost of that writ, (c) K16,000 for “additional interest”, and K8,565 for a District Court garnishee order.

4. That third writ for the levy of property was issued by the registry despite Order 13 Rule 29(1) stating:
   

Not more than one writ shall be issued on a judgement, unless the Court otherwise orders.

5. As a result, this case was considered as clearly warranting the Court exercising the power conferred by s 155(3)(a) of the Constitution, which provides:
   

“ The National Court –

(a) has an inherent power to review any exercise of judicial authority ...”

6. On 24 November 2025, orders were made to set aside the default judgment, entered on 21 March 2018, the certificate of taxation issued on 28 May 2018, the garnishee order made on 12 January 2024, and the writ for levy of property that was signed and sealed on 18 November 2025. Orders were also made to permit both parties to file and serve any additional evidence upon which they wished to rely, and the proceedings were listed for hearing today.
   

Evidence for the plaintiff

7. The plaintiff filed an affidavit on 2 December 2025. However, as the orders made on 24 November 2025 indicated that he should file any additional evidence, the Court asked whether he wished to also rely on the original affidavit he filed in support of his claim on 5 June 2017. He said he did. As a result, those affidavits became Exhibits A and B respectively.
   
8. The 5 June 2017 affidavit indicated that the defendant paid the plaintiff K500 in relation to a laptop sold to him for K3,500, which left K3,000 remaining to be paid. It was alleged that the defendant was “advised about the 30% monthly interest for delaying”. A letter dated 30 June 2015 was annexed, as was an invoice dated 2 October 2014, and a letter of demand dated 10 August 2015. It is convenient to here note that none of those three documents referred to any interest being payable.
   
9. The 2 December 2025 affidavit repeated the claim that the defendant was told that interest of 30% per month would be payable on the K3,000 invoice. It was said that 30% per month on K3,000, being K900 per month, was payable for 22.5 months which was said to give the amount of K20,250, but it is noted that such an amount does not include the K3,000, only the interest said to be payable on that amount. Reference was then made to the default judgement and certificate of taxation. There was also a reference to a Certificate of Taxation said to have been issued by the Supreme Court on 18 November 2021, for K45,000. However, those costs form part of separate proceedings in the Supreme Court and are not part of these proceedings.
   
10. It was also said “K16,000.00 is the additional business interest costs for six years (From 2^nd October 2024 to this date)” but there was no evidence to support that amount nor was there any indication of how that amount was calculated. There was also a paragraph which suggested “The evidence of the amount of K78,877.01 is the business loss and the hardship from 2015 to this date” but, again, no supporting evidence was provided. The claim for K250 for the writ was said to be the K50 filing fee “and the K200.00 for typing, printing, photo copying and so forth”.
    

Defendant’s notice of motion

11. It is convenient to here note that, on 12 December 2025, the defendant filed a Notice of Motion (marked for identification as MFI 1) which sought to have the proceedings dismissed on the basis that the defendant was not served with the Writ of Summons, alternatively that the defendant be granted leave to file and serve a defence out of time.
    

Evidence for the defendant

12. What became Exhibit 1 is an affidavit of file search, filed on 12 December 2025, which only served to indicate the documents which are on the Court’s file for these proceedings.
    
13. Exhibit 2 was an affidavit of the defendant, also filed on 12 December 2025 who suggested that he first became aware of these proceedings when his bank informed him of a garnishee order, dated 14 October 2019. He referred to an offer to pay the plaintiff K5,000 but the documents provided did not support that amount. The defendant referred to aspects of the history of these proceedings, contending there was a failure to serve various documents on him.
    
14. The third affidavit upon which the defendant relied (Exhibit 3), filed on 18 December 2025, was an affidavit of service that does not go to the issues requiring consideration in these proceedings.
    

Submissions

15. Neither party took up the opportunity to cross-examine the other party when provided with an opportunity to do so.
    
16. The plaintiff said he had not had time to consider the defendant’s Notice of Motion but, since that lacked merit, it was not necessary to hear from him on that aspect of these proceedings. He said he otherwise relied on the documents he had submitted to the Court.
    
17. Submissions made by the defendant were that he had not been served, that he had taken the matter to the Supreme Court and that the plaintiff’s evidence included reference to matters that were not part of these proceedings. It was contended that the plaintiff was seeking vengeance. Further, it was noted that document number 18 on the Court’s file which referred to Daniel Don Kapi, being the document numbered 21. Reference was made to settlement offers and inti was indicated that the defendant is now unemployed and unable to pay the plaintiff. He said he wanted to settle these proceedings. However, he has had ample opportunity to do so and he was giving an opportunity to do so during today’s hearing while time was given for documents to be considered. The defendant also requested that he be able to see a lawyer but (1) he has had ample opportunity to do so, and (2) it appears that the documents upon which he relied today were prepared by a lawyer. His primary assertion was that the amount of K200,000 or more that is not claimed by the plaintiff is excessive. He said he was prepared to pay the original price.
    
18. Before the hearing concluded, the parties were advised that the Court would try to reach a decision and prepare reasons for that decision today, since today is the last day that the Court is open this year. They were excused from attendance when the final orders were made and the reasons for those orders was either delivered orally our published in writing. Contact details were obtained so that the registry can notify the parties when the orders and reasons are ready for collection from the registry of the National Court in Wabag.
    

Consideration

19. First, since it appears from the evidence that the defendant mounted an unsuccessful challenge to the orders that were previously made in these proceedings, he is clearly aware of them, such that any failure to serve documents on him is a matter well past, that could and should been raised long ago. As the plaintiff did not dispute the unpaid invoice balance, there is no utility in permitting him to lodge a defence and add time and cost to proceedings that are already almost ten years old. For those reasons, the defendant’s Notice of Motion should be dismissed.
    
20. The evidence of the plaintiff in support of his claim that the unpaid invoice amount of K3,000 was subject to interest of 30% per month was and is deficient. First, there is no evidence that such a rate of interest was agreed, as the plaintiff claimed that he “advised” the defendant of that. Secondly, there is insufficient evidence to prove that rate of interest applied in that the plaintiff’s evidence does not indicate when and where that conversation occurred, who was present or what was said. Thirdly, the contemporaneous documents, notably the invoice upon which the claim for K3,000 is based, did not refer to interest at all.
    
21. It is fortunate for the plaintiff that he did not provide such evidence because, if he did, that may well have resulted in the transaction being unenforceable, both as to the K3,000 and interest, due to an interest rate of 360% per annum.
    
22. There is no issue that the defendant owes the plaintiff K3,000, being the balance of the amount payable for a computer that was the subject of an invoice dated 2 October 2014. He is therefore entitled to recover (1) that amount, plus (2) interest at the rate of 8% per annum, based to the Judicial Proceedings (Debts and Damages) Act 2015 from the date when the writ of summons was filed up to today, and (3) a reasonable amount for his costs. That is the position that was correctly stated in the order that was made on 12 January 2024 which granted leave for the plaintiff to serve a garnishee order.
    
23. Interest on K3,000 at the rate of 8% per annum is K240 per annum and that is equal to K20 per month. From 8 September 2016 to today is a period of 9 years and 3 months which is 111 months. At K20 per month, that gives K2,220 as the amount payable in respect of interest.
    
24. Hence, the unpaid invoice amount of K3,000 plus interest of K2,220 gives K5,220 and it only remains to consider the question of costs.
    
25. A consideration of the Bill of Costs previously submitted, as indicated above, only suggests an entitlement to recover K129 up to that date. Adding that amount gives K5,329 to which an allowance needs to be made for the reasonable costs of the plaintiff since then.
    
26. It is necessary to omit matters for which he is not entitled to recover costs, such as pursing garnishee orders and writs for extravagant amounts, including amounts that were never proved and amounts relating to other proceedings. By way of illustration, an affidavit filed by the plaintiff on 18 November 2025 suggested he was entitled to claim K222,275.01 that was said to be calculated as follows:

27. The Court considers and amount of K671 is a reasonable amount to allow, thereby bringing the total amount which the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendant to K6,000.
    
28. Given the history of these proceedings, notably the plaintiff filing documents seeking amount which he is not entitled to recover, an order should be made that no further document in relation to these proceedings is to be signed by the registry of the without first obtaining the approval of the resident judge.
    
29. As the defendant’s Notice of Motion took little additional time and both parties were self-represented, each party should pay their own costs of that motion.

Orders

30. For these reasons, the following orders are made:
    
    1. The defendant’s notice of motion is dismissed.
    2. Each party is to bear their own costs of that notice of motion.
    3. Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the amount of K6,000, inclusive of interest and costs.
    4. No further documents in relation to these proceedings are to be signed or issued by the registry without first consulting the resident judge.

5. These proceedings are now to be treated as having been finalised. 6. Time is abridged so that these orders may be entered forthwith.

Orders Accordingly.

__________________________________________________________________