Piara v Joseph [2005] PGDC 110; DC290 (10 October 2005)

DC290

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]

CASE NO 2703 OF 2005

BETWEEN

Philip Piara
Complainant

V

Lussak Joseph
Defendant

Port Moresby: Bidar, Pm
2005: 10th October

DISTRICT COURT-
- Practice and Procedure -
- Application by Notice of Motion -
- Seeking to dismiss: proceedings as being statute barred
- Frauds and Limitations Acts, S.16

Counsel
Complainant Appeared In Person
Defendant Appeared In Person

RULING

10th October 2005

BIDAR, PM: On 12th September 2005 the Defendant (applicant) filed a notice of action seeking the following orders:

1. The complaint be struck out for being defective

2. Alternatively, the proceedings be dismissed for being statute barred.

3. In the further alternative, the proceeding be dismissed for being frivolous and vexatious as having no reasonable cause of action in law.

To understand the orders sought it is appropriate to state brief background to the proceedings.

On the 10th August 2005, complainant filed a summons upon complaint against the defendant claiming unpaid wages, whilst being employed as a security guard for the period of almost five (5) years since 1998 to provide security for defendants property at Section 70 allotment 12 Heano Drive Gordons at a salary of K130.00 a fortnight. From 1998 to date he had not been paid, he claims salaries which had not been paid.

Complainant waited from 1998 to 10th August 2005, to file proceedings against the defendant, a period some seven (7) years after. Time limitations under S.16 of the Frauds and Limitations Act bars complainant pursuing his claim, simply because he waited too long to bring his claim. There is nothing the court could do, the law is that, claim is brought after time limitation has run on the complainant.

In all the circumstances, I grant the motion. The proceedings are dismissed as being statute barred. Parties pay their own costs.