Pore v Potter [2005] PGDC 30; DC161 (7 June 2005)

DC161

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]

CASE NO 924 OF 2005

BETWEEN

Dan Pore
Complainant

V

Gerry W Potter
First Defendant

Cater Corp Png Limited
Second Defendant

PORT MORESBY: BIDAR
2005: 7th June

District Court - Practice and Procedure – Application by Notice of Motion for dismissal of complaint as disclosing no reasonable cause of action – In the alternative deposit security for costs in the sum of K2,000.00 or any reasonable amount.

Cases Cited
There are no cases cited.

Counsel
Wynn Thomas for Defendants
Mr. Kumi for Complainant

RULING

7th June, 2005.

BIDAR PM: On 7th April 2005 complainant filed amended summons upon complaint against the defendants which he claims that right of fair hearing and opportunity to be heard was not afforded to him (Audi Alteram Porten rule) was not afforded to him. Complainant being seriously aggravated as a result of defendants violent harsh and oppressive attitude resulting in losing his wages for past and future.

Complainant also sustained injuries to feeling, damages to character and reputation violation of constitutional rights.

And complainant claims for:

1. Unlawful termination.

2. Los of wages for both past and future.

3. Damages to violations to constitutional rights.

4. Injuries to feelings.

5. Costs and expenses.

6. Such further Orders this Court deems just in the circumstances.

The claim as it is alleges a number of possible actions. Those include unlawful termination, damages for violations of constitutional rights and possible action for defamation. Complainant may not plead several causes of action, as it may offend against sections 28 or 29 of the District Court Act. Secondly claims for alleged breach of constitutional right cannot be brought before this Court, simply because Court lacks jurisdiction to deal with constitutional issues.

The defendants after filing their defence on 14th April 2005, filed this motion on 17th May 2005. The motion seeks the following Orders:-

"1. This complaint be dismissed for not disclosing a reasonable cause of action.

2. In the alternative security for cost of K2,000.00 or a reasonable amount be deposited into Court so that the defendants are not prejudiced in anyway if the Court finds in their favour.
   
3. Costs arising out of and incidental to defending this complaint.
   
4. Any other or further Orders this Court deems fit."
   

Having heard counsel and upon reading the file particularly the statement of claim filed herein I find that it (statement of claim) appear to allege several causes of action, including breaches of constitutional rights.

As I alluded to, constitutional issues are beyond this Court’s jurisdiction and cannot be pleaded in this Court. The manner the statement of claim is framed does not show any reasonable cause of action at all. If the complainant was terminated it is the prerogative of the employee for any reason or for non, pursuant to the provisions of sections 35 and 36 of the Employment Act.

If it was a management decision to scale down operations and terminate employees it does not need, one cannot question that decision.

In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that the statement does not disclose a reasonable cause of action. I grant the motion by defendants. I order that the complaint be dismissed with costs to the defendants.

Rules accordingly.

Mr. Kumi: Complainant
Warner Shand: Defendant