Akom v Magea [2005] PGDC 100; DC427 (3 August 2005)

DC427

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]

CASE NO 3405 OF 2004

BETWEEN

Sakare Akom
Complainant

V

Robert Magea, Chris Kopi, Was Kandam
First Defendants

Sam Inguba - Police Commissioner
Second Defendant

The Independent State of Papua New Guinea
Third Defendant

Port Moresby: Bidar, Pm
2005: 8th June & 3rd August

Damages - Police raid and confiscation of beer and cash - Damages - Loss of cash, beer and business.

Cases Cited

3rd August 2005.

DECISION

BIDAR, PM: On the 16th August 2004, Complainant filed summons upon complaint against the Defendants claiming loss of cash and beer, at his premises at Morata No. 2, National Capital District as a result of police raid. Some policemen fronted up at the Complainant premises in two police vehicles, entered the complainants trade store and removed and carted away 18 cartons of SP beer and K2,131.80 cash.

Defendants have not filed any notice of intention to defend or defence, despite service of Court process having been affected to the defendants and poof of which is in the file. On the motion moved by Complainant’s legal representative, default judgement on liability was entered on the 24th May 2005.

The matter now comes before me for assessment of damages.

Complainant in his calculation of damages comes up with a figure of K10,000.00. This figure consists of K2,131.80 cash lost in the raid, value of 18 cartoons of SP beer (bottle) at K50.00 per carton which calculates to K900.00. The balance of the claim which is K6,960.20 is loss of business over the period of time complainant was kept out of business.

As to the loss of business or profit, complainant provided some calculations, which he claimed was beyond K10,000.00 but had to abandon the excess so as to bring the claim down to jurisdiction of this Court.

The basic principle of damages is that complainant has the duty to prove both liability and loss suffered. Simply providing figures is not sufficient. In respect to loss of business or profit such evidence as profit and loss, tax returns and perhaps balance sheets. Court is aware that operations such as trade store, liquor outlets run by Papua New guineas on small scale basis do not have such records kept and perhaps no taxes paid at all.

In these circumstances, I order restitution of K2,131.80 which was taken during police raid. I assess a figure of K900.00 for value of 18 cartons of SP beer. As to loss of profit in the absence of evidence to establish actual loss over the period of time, I assess, a figure of K2,000.00 which I award.

I order judgement for complainant in the sum of K5,031.80. I allow interest at 8% from date of summons to judgement. Complaint shall have his costs paid by defendants to be taxed if not agreed.

Timil Tape (Student Lawyer from LTI): Complainant
Non Appearance: Defendant