Singut v Mokii [2005] PGDC 111; DC439 (12 October 2005)

DC439

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]

CASE NO 2420 OF 2005

BETWEEN

Simon Singut
Complainant

V

Serah Mokii
First Defendant

Steven Mark
Second Defendant

Port Moresby: Bidar, Pm
2005: 13th September & 12th October

Civil claim – Claim for rental arrears and out standing water bill - Tenants and Tenancy Agreement – Parties to Agreement - Whether or not defendants liable – Judgment for Defendants

Cases Cited
There are no cases cited in the Judgment

Counsel
Complainant Appeared In Person
Defendants Appeared In Person

DECISION

12th October 2005.

BIDAR, PM: On the 7th July 2005, Complainant filed Default Summons upon a complaint for a Civil Debt against the Defendants claiming rental arrears and outstanding water bill, which totals to K1818.12.

The claim by complaint is not very clear but it seems that the Defendants signed a tenancy agreement some one month after they moved into the property at Section 259 allotment 5 Gerehu at a monthly rental of K433.33. One of the terms of lease agreement was for lessee to pay for excess water charges

The pleading in this case has not been done properly and it is difficult to ascertain what actually happened. There is evidence of some payments made by the defendants both for rental and for water. It is however, not known how long the defendants rented the property before they were locked out.

The amount claimed as outstanding rental is K983.75 and for outstanding water charges is K834.37. The Defendants do not admit these figures and therefore dispute the figures. The other aspect of dispute is that, the defendants initially dealt with BoiBoi Real Estate, which is a separate legal entity and as such should have been the complainant as the lease agreement was that rental payments were made to that entity as the lessor and Serah Mokii as the lessee.

In all the circumstances this court is not satisfied on the balance of probabilities, as there are issues, which have not been clarified. First, whether complainant is the appropriate party to sue bearing in mind, that the tenancy agreement is between BoiBoi Real Estate as the lessor and Serah Mokii as the lessee. Secondly, on evidence court is not satisfied as to what amount is actually owed as rental arrears if any and what amount is outstanding as excess water charges.

Thirdly, court is not satisfied as to the manner parties entered into the tenancy agreement. There are questions raised as to the propriety of it. In all the circumstances, I find the defendants not liable. I dismiss the proceedings with costs to the defendants.