Awa v Pim [2001] PGDC 3; DC133 (30 November 2001)

DC133

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]

CASE NO 15 OF 2000

BETWEEN

BAKRI AWA
Complainant

AND

PIUS PIM - CITY MANAGER
First Defendant

MT. HAGEN CITY AUTHORITY

Second Defendant

Mt Hagen: Appa
10 October, 30 November 2001

JUDGMENT

The Mt. Hagen City Authority as a driver from 1994 to 1997 when he resigned employed the complainant. He now claims that all his overtime payment was not paid due to lack of funds with the second defendant. He further claims that his overall authority, the then City Manager Mr. Raphael Moge had specifically asked him to wait for his overtime payment until such time funds became available. That was how he did not lodge in his overtime claims until he resigned. The new management could not entertain his claim so he took out summons.

In support of complainant's case, the then City Manager Mr. Raphael Moge filed an affidavit confirming that complainant was employed as a driver during his administration and that he was aware of the non payment of overtime due to lack of funds. Another witness Councillor Koipa Epla said in his affidavit that the overtime claim is genuine and should be paid. He gave evidence in his capacity as a Board Member of the City Authority.

Defence denied the claim in totality saying they had no records of any overtime claims lodged by the complainant. The affidavits filed by both sides were admitted by consent and counsels -Messrs B. Ovia (for the defendants) and Gonol (for the complainant) filed written submissions both on liability and quantum and were considered.

I came to the conclusion that I should give a lot of weight to the evidence of the complainant's two key witnesses, the former City Manager and Board member of City Authority referred to above, whether or not there were records of overtime claims, it was a procedural matter. The fact was that complainant was verbally advised by the authority to wait for his overtime claim until such time funds was available. The City Manager makes the final endorsement before payment was processed.

I find that it was more probable than not that complainant was entitled to something in overtime. Liability is therefore established.

On the issued of quantum, the complainant in his amended summons claims K6, 988.80 being his unpaid overtime, a figure based on calculation done by the Labour Department to cover for the four years of services.

I cannot allow this figure because we have no records of the actual overtime worked. I can only make a global award. I do that by reducing the claim by half.

I enter judgment for the complainant for a sum of K3, 494.40 plus 8% interest to run from date of summons to date of settlement and cost of the proceeding. The judgment debt is to be settled by the second defendant.

Paulus M. Dowa Lawyers: Lawyer of the complainant
Solicitor General: Lawyer of the defendant