Kai v Maume [2005] PGDC 98; DC485 (1 August 2005)

DC485

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]

CASE NO 548 OF 2005

BETWEEN

Wera Kai
Complainant

V

Thomas Maume
First Defendant

Robin Yanopa
Second Defendant

National Capital District Commission
Third Defendant

The Independent State of Papua New Guinea
Fourth Defendant

Port Moresby: Bidar, PM
2005: 1st August

Damages - Claim for damages - Removal by officers of Third Defendant of Complainant’s vehicles or what were left of them from his premises - Valuation - No evidence of valuation - Duty to prove loss or damages - Mere assertions not sufficient.

Cases cited
There are no cases cited

1st August 2005

DECISION

BIDAR, PM: On 10th May 2005 the Court entered ex parte judgement on liability and adjourned the matter for assessment of damages today.

Briefly the complainant’s claim arose out of the Third Defendant’s waste management term, entering premises at Badili and removing vehicle parts as waste and disposal of the same. The parts were inspected and checked by officers of the Third Defendant including their senior mechanic and these parts were found to be total wrecks and of no value. They were removed and carted for disposal.

Complainant in his submission on damages gave certain figures as values for parts removed by the third Defendants’ officers.

The basic principles is that a person who alleges a fact, must prove it as well as his loss. In this case, I find no evidence at all to establish proof of loss. There is no evidence of an independent valuation of the parts in question by a mechanic or someone who is well versed in motor vehicle parts.

Simply providing figures in my view is mere assertions and does not go to establish proof of loss. On the evidence adduced by complainant, the Court is unable to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the complainant suffered any loss, let alone the amount claimed.

In these circumstances, Court awards no damages, as complainant has failed to prove any loss.

The Court therefore enters judgement for defendants and dismiss the proceedings. Parties pay their own costs.

In Person: Complainant
In Person: Defendant