Isoi v Ketio [2000] PGDC 36; DC261 (8 November 2000)

DC261

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]

CASE NO 480 OF 2000

BETWEEN

Nihuwo Isoi
Complainant

V

Margaret Ketio
First Defendant

Daulo Security Services
Second Defendant

Goroka: Manue F. Magistrate
2000: 8th November

CIVIL JURISDICTION

MANUE F: This is a claim for loss of goods by the illegal actions of the employees of the Defendants. The Defendants being liable through the doctrine of vicarious liability.

The matter first came before the Court on the 18th October 2000, when the defendants each and severally did not show appearances. It was then adjourned to the 6th November 2000 for further deliberation. On the first date of appearance, the complainant was directed to prepare and file an affidavit that was done. On the second date set all the parties to the case appeared. At this stage, when the defendants were present, neither of them pleaded whether they had any intention of defending themselves, nor was there any notice of Intention to Defend filed.

Each of the Defendants were then referred to their copy of the Statement of Claim when going through each of the particulars in the statement of claim, all of the paragraphs as outlined were admitted by the Defendants each and severally.

I will now set out the relevant parts of the statement of claim.

"Statement of Claim

1. It is alleged that on the 2nd June 2000, three (3) security guards employed by the second defendant when protecting the premises of Air Niugini including the complainant’s canteen break the door to the canteen and removed cash and goods worth K2,593.50.

5. On the 3rd June 2000 when the complainant arrived at the canteen to open up business he found out that the door was broken.

6. The complainant reported the matter to the Manager, Air Niugini, Goroka and he came and witnessed the incident. They both called the first Defendant (owner) who also witnessed the break and enter incident.

7. The matter was then reported to Police C.I.D. here in Goroka and Mr. Peter Kafare visited the scene, interrogated the security guards that admitted openly that they were the culprits who had stolen the money and goods.

8. It is further alleged that instead of being charged, the First Defendant wanted them released and accept responsibility of paying up for the stolen items. To this the complainant agreed."

Paragraphs 6, 7, and 8 of the statement of claim clarify what transpired after the illegal actions of the Defendants on the night of 2nd June 2000.

There was a break and enter by the employees of the Defendants. They were advised and did witness the incident. The matter was then reported to the Police who were in the process of investigating. At this point in time, the Defendants, particularly intervened, and made an undertaking to reimburse the loss of goods and money in cash. The undertaking was made to protect the employees from possible prosecution and the consequences that follow upon conviction in a Court of law.

The question here is not whether the defendants were given an opportunity to defend themselves but rather, the Defendants agreed to pay for the loss of goods and money.

I noted that the affidavit that was accepted was a repetition of all the particulars set out in the Statement of Claim. The only substantial differences are that, it carries weight and that it disclosed specifically the goods that went missing. The fact of the matter remains that the disclosed amount stated in the Statement of Claim is made out also in the list, as annexture of the complainant’s affidavit.

I found that the complaint in every particular was made out and admitted.

Judgement was therefore entered accordingly for the complainant.

In Person: Complainant
In Person: Defendant