Ikupu v Anivai [2005] PGDC 11; DC105 (16 August 2005)

DC105

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]

CASE NO 1520 OF 2005

BETWEEN

MONICA IKUPU

Complainant

AND

CHRISTINE ANIVAI
Defendant

Port Moresby

Bidar, Pm
25 July 2005
16 August 2005

CLAIM:
Compensation -
Looking After and Rearing Female Grandchild
-Over 10 year period
- Child claimed by mother
- Circumstances whether any cause of action
- Whether mother liable to compensate grandparents
- Parents of the child
- Social obligations
- Judgment for Defendant

Counsel
Complainant appeared in person
No appearances by Defendant

DECISION

16th August 2005

BIDAR, PM: The complainant, Monica Ikupu of Kivori village, Bereina filed summons upon Complainant against Defendant Christine Anivai and her complaint is worded in the manner:

"Your daughter was taken care of by the Complainant and her husband from 1994 to 2004 and both have aggrieved by your inhuman treatment to them by using the Police rather than settling the custody issue peacefully. For all the expanses incurred during the 10 years of your daughter with them. Mrs. Ikupu says the Honourable Court that you pay K10 000.00 as compensation as outlined hereunder:

10 years X 365

1. Daily meal K8.00 per day - K2 920.00 is K8.00 x 365

2. School fees for 3 years - K300.00

3. Bus fare K3.00 x 205 day (41 weeks) - K615.00

4. Labour - K6 165.00

Total = K10 000.00."

Simply put, the claim appears to be one of compensation for looking after and rearing the defendant's daughter over the period of 10 years.

The Defendant was Simon Ikupu's girlfriend and in 1991, they started living together. Simon Ikupu is the Complainants son at the time. Christine (defendant) had not completed her Grade 10. Complainant spent her using her to complete her Grade 10, which she did.

Whilst living together as boyfriend and girlfriend she gave birth to their daughter, whom complainant named after herself as Monica Ikupu. After she gave birth to their daughter she started to work.

It was during this time, Simon and Christine were having problems and there were constant fights, as Simon suspected that Christine was having affair with another man. The listing of events went on and on, until the defendant took her daughter away from the grandparents.

She claims as I alluded to, the sum of K10 000.00, for expenses incurred for school fees, clothing, pocket allowances and time and efforts in rearing their granddaughter.

I have considered the affidavit filed both for complainant and the Defendant. The whole situation arose as a result of Complainants son Simon Ikupu's relationship with the defendant. Their relationship was an unhappy one there were constant fights and generally there was no peace and harmony which resulted in each of them going their separate ways as to the present proceeding is there a cause of action the complainant can pursue against the Defendant? What is the cause of action was there any contractual arrangement entered into or a merely social relationship. I am unable to be satisfied as to the cause of actions, the complainant can pursue against the defendant.

In my view, it was merely a social relationship and obligations that the grandparents have over their grandchild.

It is a general social practice in our country for grandparents to look after, and care for their grand children. In this case, given the situation the parents of the child were experiencing it was the grandparent's social obligation to take their grandchild and care for her. The expenses they incurred and the love affection and care are part of facing social obligations on their grandchild.

Even if I am wrong and there is a cause of action against the Defendant, the claim may be statute booed. Complainant claims expenses incurred as well as labour and efforts for the last 10 years. On her complaint it is not clear as to when the cause of action arose, if any.

In all the circumstances, Court is not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the defendant is liable. Judgment is therefore, entered for Defendants.

The proceedings are dismissed, parties to pay their own costs.

In Person: Complainant
In Person: Defendant