Correctional Institutional Services v Mufuana [1998] PGDC 4; DC27 (21 May 1998)

Unreported District Court Decisions

[1998] PNGDC 5 - CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONAL SERVICES V BUTTICK F MUFUANA & OTHERS

[1998] PNGDC 5

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]

PARTIES:  CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONAL SERVICES

APPLICANT

V

BUTTICK K MUFUANA, JACK J PISE, OTTO M KARI

RESPONDENTS

Kimbe

G Manuhu PM

12 May 1998

21 May 1998

SUMMARY EJECTMENT - Retired Correctional officers continued occupation of State houses - Basis for provision for housing non-existent - Adequacy of damages - Ability of Respondent's to vacate houses - Warrant to eject issued.

Cases Cited

Robinson v National Airlines Commission [1983] PNGLR 476

Representation

Counsel/Representative

Applicant:  Jail Commander

Respondents:  In person

GEORGE MANUHU PM:

N1>[1]      The Applicant seeks orders under s6 of the Summary Ejectment Act (Chapter 202), for the Respondents to be ejected from State houses they are still in occupation of after their contract of service with the Applicant, which is a State body, has been terminated.

N1>[2]      The First Respondent retired on 28 July 1996. Since then he has received a payout of more than K6,000.00 but has continued to occupy the State house because he claims the State has not given him his Excess Warrants and his Recreational Leave Tickets for 1995. The Second Respondent retired in March 1997, and has got more than K6,000.00 as well as the Excess Warrants. He has continued to occupy the State house because he claims the State still owes him Recreational Leave tickets for 1994 and 1996. The Third Respondent retired on 21 June 1997, and has got more than K7,000.00 in entitlements except the Excess Warrants, hence, his continued occupancy of the State house.

N1>[3]      It is not disputed that the respective houses were given to the Respondents on the basis of their employment which relationship has now ceased. In other words, the Respondents are now living in free accommodation which I understand comes together with subsidised water and power usage. The issue therefore is whether non-payment of Excess Warrants and Recreational Leave entitlements are valid reasons for continued free accommodation?

N1>[4]      I think not. The basis for free housing is already non-existent. The Respondents are no longer employed by the State. The relationship here is that of master and servant; and, the position of the law is as per the obiter dictum in the case of Robinson v National Airline Commission [1983] PNGLR 476 at 478:

"It is true that the rights of the plaintiff lie at law by way of action for wrongful dismissal, assuming the dismissal to be unlawful. In a suit between master and servant in which the servant seeks to prevent the master suspending or dismissing him, the court will not interfere. If it is a suit for a declaration that the service continues, again in the case of an ordinary relationship of master and servant, the court will not interfere. Equity will not compel either master or servant to continue a personal relationship which has become noxious to either one of them." (my emphasis)

N1>[5]      If I allow the Respondents to continue to occupy the State houses I would, in effect, be compelling the State to continue a relationship which has long ceased - it has become noxious to either of them.

N1>[6]      Secondly, if the above analysis is incorrect, I cannot allow the Respondents to live in the houses because the alleged wrong committed against them is calculable or ascertainable whilst their deprivation of the State of possession of the houses is immeasurable. Again, in the cited case at 479, Andrew J stated:

"The injunction seeks to restrain what is said to be a legal wrong. But in general, an injunction will only lie if damages are inadequate. The requirement that 'irremediable damage' or 'irreparable injury' would result if an injunction were not granted is no more than another way of saying that damages must be shown to be inadequate as a remedy; all damage is in equity considered irremediable or irreparable if not adequately compensable in damages..." (my emphasis)

N1>[7]      In simple terms, the Respondents' claim of unpaid entitlements can be easily calculated and remediable. On the other hand, their deprivation of the State of the houses, if I allow them to stay on, is difficult to calculate for the following reason. If the Respondents remain in the houses, it is uncertain as to when they will vacate the houses. This would only aggravate the pain already being felt by the State. I can imagine that other State employees are waiting in the queue to occupy these houses and are at the moment living with wantoks. Who is going to pay for wantok's accommodation? and, how much is it going to be when the Respondents finally vacate the houses in question? The State and its current employees are really suffering more than the Respondents. Equity does not allow this type of situation to prevail.

N1>[8]      The Respondents pleaded to me that they are simple people who had been waiting for a long time for their entitlements to arrive. My response is I have to apply the law - justice means justice according to law. In any case, they have each got more than K6,000.00 from the State. Obviously, they now have the ability to move out of the houses. And there is nothing wrong with pursuing their unpaid entitlements from their new locations. On second thought, I think the Respondents are applying pressure tactics on the State. This sort of behaviour is simply unacceptable.

N1>[9]      I find, ultimately, that the Respondents do not have any acceptable reasons to continue occupation of all three State houses. They have no right or title to continue their occupation of the houses. Their current occupancy is simply illegal. Accordingly, pursuant to s6 of the Summary Ejectment Act, Warrants of Ejectment will issue against each of them to leave the respective houses within 14 days.

N1>[10]    Orders accordingly.