DC258

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]

CASE NO 109 OF 2001

BETWEEN

Nicholas Namba Representing Himself And All Members Of The Kaweka Ward Development Trustee
Complainant

V

Dei Local Level Government
First Defendant

Dei District Administrator
Second Defendant

Mt. Hagen: Appa, P.M.
2002: 3rd April, 3rd May

JUDGMENT

The principal complainant is a councilor representing his tribesmen who are members of Kawelka Ward Development Trustee.

They complained in this proceeding about not being properly paid by the defendants for carrying out a 19.5 KM road maintenance work on Bulk Kora/Tigi road in the Dei District.

They claimed in their affidavit that the Provincial Administrator Dr. Thomas Webster and the Provincial Engineering people went to Muglamp on the 23rd June 1999, and verbally awarded the contract to the Complainant’s group and others. They carried out the work and when completed the Engineering Division paid them K600.00 so they were not happy and refused to accept. The K600.00 was later repaid to the Engineering Division Trust account. They claimed that the K600.00 was not enough for the nature of work done. They used an example of a 3 KM road maintenance work, the contractors were paid K900.00 so for the 19.5 KM road they expected to be paid more than K600.00.

Following their protest, the Provincial Roads Co-ordinator Mr. Oukil and Dei District Administrator co-ordinated an inspection of the maintenance work and applying their standard scale assessed the value of the work to be at K9,529.00. This amount was approved by the Engineering Division and submitted the claim to the Provincial Treasury but was rejected by Dr. Webster claiming that money for the project was already released so complainant should have been paid. He stated in his letter to Dei District Administrator dated 11th January 2001 that if the complainant had been missed out, it was the responsibility of the District and Dei Local Level Government Council to pay them. It was upon that direction that Complainant’s took out this proceeding. The brief facts alluded to above showed that the Western Highlands Provincial Government and its Engineering Division should have been made parties to the proceeding. Nevertheless, we shall proceed.

On the evidence there is no dispute that the 19.5 KM road maintenance work was carried out following the verbal contract of service offered by Dr. Webster. The issue is whether or not proper payment was made. 

The respective authorities did not dispute that work was done. I find that liability is established.

According to the Provincial Works Co-ordinator, he assessed the value of the work to be at K9,529.00 which was later approved and processed for payment by the Engineering Division. I am not qualified to change the figure. I accept that the quantum be at K9,529.00.

The question now is who is going to be made liable to pay. Since the Western Highlands Provincial Government and its Engineering Division were not made parties to the case. It has to be between Dei District Administrator and or Dei Local Level Government Council. Dei District Administrator cannot personally be held liable so the only party left is the Dei Local Level Government Council since the feeder road being maintained are within its Council Wards areas which I believe is part of its functions.

I enter judgment against Dei Local Level Government Council to pay the complainant a sum of K9,529.00 being for road maintenance work carried out on Bulk – Kora/Tigi section of Kontna Tigi roads. I allow 8% interest on the judgment sum and cost.

It is recommended that Dei Local Level Government Council liaise with the WHPG through the Provincial Administrator and Engineering Division for payment should the former (Dei LLGC) faces financial shortage.