Kilitus v Meregori [2001] PGDC 39; DC355 (14 November 2001)

DC355

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]

CASE NO 27 OF 2000

BETWEEN

James C Kilitus
Complainant

V

Jimmy Meregori
Defendant

Mt Hagen: Appa - P.M
2001: 9th Oct, 14th November

Judgement

The complainant is a legal Clerk with Doa Lawyers and the defendant is said to be a Policeman – complainant claims that on the night of 27th May 2000 (at 11 pm) the defendant led a group of men to the complainant’s house at Warakum, woke him up, punched him down and entered the house, damages certain household properties and make off with other moveable properties. No properties were provided but I understand that that issue was taken up in a separate proceeding. Its seems that in this proceeding complainant is suing for reimbursement of his expense in relation to his other cases both at Village and District Court/ complainant further claims that his domestic problem and related conveniences were caused by the defendant’s intention.

The defendant failed to turn up to defend and, he did not file any notice of intention to defend since start of the case on 2nd July 2001. Case proceeded ex parte defendant. Proof of service of summons was properly filed.

Complainant filed and tendered his affidavits and support documents including his medical report on assault committed on him by the defendant and others. Annexure "B" to his damages on stolen by the defendant and or by this other mass. Total valves appeared as K5, 241.00 what struck me about that list was that the defendant’s name was not mentioned on the list as one of the persons who stole or damaged the household properties. This further confirms that complainant is only concerned about the defendant’s intention to the premises and to his family life.

There is sufficient evidences that defendant did commit the tort of trespass and as the direct result complainant had suffered the damages alleged. Liability is therefore established on the balance of probabilities.

On the issue of quantum, complainant asks for K10,000 in general damages and also asks for additional compensation for using insulting words, exemplary damages and cost of the proceeding. Those additional claims could not be considered because they would exceed the principle claims. There was also no documentary proof or evidence on his loss of pay as he’s claim is not allowed.

As to the principal claim, the K10,000 had not be quantified. It is a general claim on trespass. Any amount to be awarded could only be global. I am satisfied with the evidence that complainant had been put through a lot of difficult situation as from the date of the trespass onto his premises at old houses by the defendant and his associates the redresses sought. I consider a figure of K2, 000 to be a fair reward.

I enter judgement for the complainant for a sum of K2, 000.00 in general damages plus 8% interest and incidental cost of the proceeding (get to be assessed) to be settled by the defendant within six weeks from date of service of the orders.