Pora v Mt. Giluwe Local Level Government Council [2002] PGDC 32; DC329 (1 November 2002)

DC329

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]

CASE NO 54 OF 2001

BETWEEN

Portson Pora
Complainant

V

Mt. Giluwe Local
Level Government Council
First Defendant

Douglas Lingawa Ilambul District Administrator
Second Defendant

Council Manager
Mt. Giluwe LLGC
Third Defendant

The Provincial Administrator Dept. of Western Highlands
Fourth Defendant

Western Highlands Provincial Government
Fifth Defendant-

Mt. Hagen: Appa, P.M.
2002: 26th September; 1st November

RULING

The complainant claims payment for security and maintenance services rendered to the Mt. Giluwe Local Level Government Council over state properties.

Defence Lawyers filed a Notice of Motion to dismiss the proceeding for non compliance with Section 5 of the Claims by and Against the State Act 1996. Also relied on was the Claims By and Against Western Highlands Provincial Government Act 1999, Section 5 (1). The Supreme Court reference No. 01 of 1998 was also cited for authority. Defence Lawyer Mr. Kak did an affidavit in support.

Complainant/Respondent read his reply to the Motion and claims in his affidavit that it was not a fresh claim but old claim for which notices were given as soon as services were rendered and for which part payment was made. He provided copies of correspondences made and exchanged between the complainant, the President of Mt. Giluwe LLGC, Tambul District Administrator and Officials of Department of Western Highlands. A particular document of significance was a letter written to the president of Mt. Giluwe LLGC and a copy addressed to the Provincial Administrator dated 5th February 2000. In that letter the full particulars of his claim were set out. The total claim being K19,298.00. A part payment of K6,000.00 was made and the balance was to be paid once funds became available. Without getting into the substantive case, I am of the view that copies of the 5th February 2000 letter addressed to the Provincial Administrator and others constituted sufficient notice of intention to claim since the two acts are silent on methods or manners of giving Section 5 Notice. Under the Provincial Act, such notice has to be given either to the Governor or the Provincial Administrator. In the present case, the complainant did send copy of his letter to the Provincial Administrator. The complainant further said in his affidavit that he was still providing services while issuing the above letter and up until the issuing of summons in March 2000.

After considering arguments from both parties, I find for the complainant/respondent that Section 5 Notice was given and complied with.

I therefore, refused the motion to dismiss the proceeding. No orders as to cost. The substantive case is adjourned sine die until both parties are ready for trial.

In Person: Complainant:Defendant
Paulus M. Dowa Lawyers