Rumbiak v Kapi [2000] PGDC 12; DC125 (12 September 2000)

DC125

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]

CASE NO 2289 OF 2000

BETWEEN

DANIEL DAVID RUMBIAK
Complainant

AND

MALA KAPI

Defendant

Mr Iova S. Geita
4, 12 September 2000

COUNSEL

Complainant in Person
Defendant in Person

REASONS FOR DECISION

GEITA I.S. - The complainant is claiming the sum of K8,303 said to be owed to him by the defendant since July 1995 for a failed promised marriage. In his affidavit the complainant asserts that when the defendant promised to marry him he began giving her money and attending to her needs. He admits that despite giving her monies and attending to her needs their relation was not good. The defendant refused to be taken out for lunch and refused to meet the complainant's family members and get to know them. According to him their relationship continued despite their differences until he found out about the defendant's relationship with another man. It is not clear what year was that. It is also not clear how the complainant arrived at the exact figure of K8,303 said to be owed to him by the defendant. There is no evidence to assist the court in this area. The complainant did not bring any witnesses to assist him in this case.

The defendant denies meeting the complainant since 1995. She however admits the existence of a friendship but says it was no more than friends. There were no promises or intentions to marry him. She says I treated him only as a friend and father figure. The complainant is advanced in age and I estimate his age to be between 40 to 50 years and the defendant appears to be in her mid 20's.

Again the defendant admits receiving small amounts of money from the complainant saying they were readily given to her as a gesture of their friendship. The monies range from between K2 to K5 and never above K10.00. All added up over the years as claimed would not amount to the sum claimed which is over inflated. All I ask of Mr. David is to be honest and exact on his claims and that he will be able to substantiate his claim with the proper documents to prove once and for all his allegations."

The defendant's witness Chris Maravis says he was surprised to learn that the complainant had summonsed the defendant to court for K8303. He says he knows the complainant who is a friend to all the workers at Pan Phil Health Centre where she works. The witness recalls seeing the complainant visit the defendant occasionally and gives her small amounts of money but says he cannot recall seeing the complainant give anything higher than K5 or K10.00. According to him he did not think their relationship was that of a boy-girl type but was merely just friends. He says he cannot recall the complainant ever mentioning to him or anyone about his love for the defendant and intention to marry her eventually.

What then is the law in this area? Section 21 (4) (e) District Courts Act Ch. No. 40 says that a court has no jurisdiction in cases of seduction or breach of promise to marry. In this case the complainant is asking this court to order the defendant to repay his monies which he says were given to her at her request and secondly for failing to keep her promise to marry him. At the outset there IS no evidence to prove that the defendant requested for the monies and were given to her by the complainant. Secondly there is no evidence to show that the defendant promised to marry the complainant. Even if that line of evidence is produced in court and sustained, the effect of Section 21 (4) (e) of the Act would nullify the complaint. I have deliberately allowed both parties to plead the complaint since the crux of the action is the recovery of monies expended and not on the "promised marriage".

I see this as a case of an elderly man freely outlaying money in an attempt to win the heart of a beautiful young girl. The converse is that the girl taking advantage to the unsuspecting elderly man and lured him into spending money on her by her beauty and kindness. Nonetheless there is insufficient evidence for this court to find for the complainant. Furthermore the complainant has given a liquidated amount but has not attempted to substantiate how he arrived at the exact sum claimed. There must be pleadings to establish this point. In the absence of proper pleadings the complaint must fail.

I know of no law that will assist the complainant in the absence of evidence. Although there is admission that some monies were received and had, I am unable to quantify what is reasonable under the circumstances; hence no orders will be made in this area. The end result is that the complaint has not been made out. I therefore order that the complaint be dismissed.

Orders accordingly.

In Person: Complainant
In Person: Defendant