Complete Investigations and Research v Manager, Wamp Nga Group of Companies [2001] PGDC 7; DC157 (6 June 2001)

DC157

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]

CASE NO 81 OF 2000

BETWEEN

Complete Investigations & Research
Complainant

V

The Manager, Wamp Nga Group of Companies
First Defendant

Wamp Nga Group of Companies
Second Defendant

Mt. Hagen: Appa,
12th March, 19th April, 6th June 2001

JUDGMENT

The complainant is a debt collecting company and was engaged by the defendants for a specific purpose of effecting the arrest and prosecution of a suspect namely a Micheal Tanda Kandiu in relation to a theft of some K35,751.00 (K40,000.00) from Shell Company in 2000.

In return for the service, defendants agreed to pay complainant K3,000.00 by way of its commission and a further K1,000.00 was to be added upon successful prosecution and recovery of the stolen money. It appears the complainant had accepted that condition.

Although it was not mentioned in complainant’s case. There was no dispute that defendants had provided airfares, accommodation and transport hire for the complainant’s employees to do their business in Port Moresby for two days. Therefore the complainant did not incur any expenses in that respect. The complainant did not produce any invoice or receipts of its own expenses as stated in Mr. Kuk’s affidavit sworn on 20th February, 2001. The invoice No. quoted was No. 15579 for K6,808.00. Court has no idea how the figure K6,808.00 was based on in the absence of details.

Complainant had also included in the same proceeding a claim for K1,737.89 for doing some work in Goroka, that was Mr. Yabara’s travel to Goroka to talk to one Jona Eri for the purpose of repossessing a truck but how was that related to Micheal Kandiu’s case. If that was a separate matter, then by law this claim could not be found on same summons unless the complainant was contracted to do other debt collecting for the defendants. At the moment there is no explanation to join the two claims together.

As for Micheal Kandiu’s case, employees of complainant went to Port Moresby and with the help of Waigani police did the search and arrested Micheal Kandiu and was placed in Boroko Police cell and was charged for misappropriation of K35,751.00. I was brought to Waigani committal court the next day and was released on K500.00 bail. The case was transferred to Mt. Hagen committal court. Complainant left the matter there with the Police. Now they are claiming their commission and related costs at K6,808.00.

Defence argued that since the work commissioned was not completed, they are not liable to pay the complainant.

I do agree that part of the work was accomplished in so far as identifying and arresting of Micheal Kandiu was concern. It was then left to the Police to do their part in prosecution. The complainant did what it was capable of doing. One of the condition set for payment of the K3,000.00 commission what that complainant was to ensure arrest of Micheal Kandiu and successful prosecution and recovery of the stolen money. Let me reiterate here again that the criminal prosecution part of it rested with the police. Complainant could do little. It was the joint responsibilities of the defendant, Shell Company and Police (CID) to follow up.

In my honest view, the complainant is entitled to half of the commission promised since part of the job was performed.

I therefore enter judgment for the complainant for a sum of K1,500.00 plus 8% interest and incidental cost of the proceeding to be settled by the second defendant. Cost to be taxed if not agreed

Complete Investigation: Complainant
Mathew Tamutai Lawyers: Defendant