Rural Development Bank Ltd vJik [2006] PGDC 29; DC671 (9 November 2006)

DC671

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE
SITTING IN ITS CIVIL JURISDICTION]

DCCi 179 of 2006

BETWEEN

RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED
Complainant

AND

MARKUS JIK
Defendant

Goroka: G VETUNAWA
2006: November 09

CIVIL

Cases Cited

1. Herman Gawi –v- PNG Ready Mix Pty Ltd [1984] PNGLR 74
2. Southern Highlands Provincial Government -v- David Kapipa and Nelson Embisi (N1486)
3. Rubinson –v- National Airlines Commission [1983] PNGLR 476
4. Dingeni Bando Wijekoon –v- UPNG & others (N715)
5. Albert Kuluah –v- UPNG [1993] PNGLR 494
6. National Airlines Employees Association –v- National Airlines Commission [1992] PNGLR 291
7. Malai –v- Aml Teachers Association [1992] PNGLR 568
8. Aa Neugiu –v- Elizabeth Talum [1992] PNGLR 296
9. 
   

References

1. Sections 6 of the Summary Ejectment Act
   

Counsel
Complainant: Joseph Jonah of RDB Legal Section
Defendant: Brian Koningi of Koningi Lawyers

09 November 2006

JUDGMENT

G Vetunawa: This is a complaint for eviction of the respondent under Section 6 of the Summary Ejectment Act. The applicant is the Rural Development Bank Limited, the former employer of the respondent.

2. The respondent was employed by the plaintiff as of 1 December 1999 and until he was retrenched on 23 December 2004.

3. Under the respondents term of contract he was entitled to employer provided accommodation. He was given accommodation in the Banks owned house at Allotment 14 Section 15 Simanisa Street, Goroka township. After the respondent was retrenched he continued to live in the employers house claiming he still has the right to reside in the house on the basis of the non-payment of his Super fund money. The respondent refused all the request to move out and so this case is the consequence of his refusal.

4. The respondent filed his defence and cross-claim. His main defence is the claim that the plaintiff owed him K5, 636.18 with interest being the employers contribution to his Super fund savings and so he claimed he was entitled to reside in the house until that money is paid.

5. The title is not the issue before this Court. The respondent does not claim title to the house. The issue is whether the non-payment of the Super fund savings creates an entitlement to reside in the employers owned house after retrenchment.

6. In the case of Herman Gawi –v- PNG Ready Mix Pty Ltd [1984] PNGLR 74 the Court held that:

“Proceedings for recovery of possession of Land and Summary Ejectment Act are intended to provide quick remedy to people who have clear title to land or premises, they are not intended where title to land is in dispute or is unclear.”

7. The plaintiff as a State Commercial Instrumentality did not need to produce title to the premises thought it did produce it, however that is not the issue so I will not go further on to that. Now I will come to the issue whether the unpaid Super fund savings creates an entitlement for the respondent to occupy the employers accommodation after he had been retrenched.

8. In the case of Robinson –v- National Airlines Commission [1983] PNGLR 476 the Court did not see any entitlement still existing after termination to enable Robinson to continue to reside in the company provided housing. In this case the Court held:

“It is true that the right of the plaintiff lie at law by way of action for wrongful dismissal, assuming the dismissal to be unlawful:-“

9. In this case the retrenchment of the respondent was lawful and so he has no action at law in that regard.

10. In the case of Air Niugini –v- Elizabeth Talum [1992] PNGLR 296 the court held that:

“An employee who occupies accommodation of his employer has no right to remain in occupancy on the termination of his service. He may have a right to damages for unlawful dismissal.”

11. In this case before me I found that the plaintiff severed its relationship with the respondent. The employer – employee relationship no longer exists. The plaintiff as the employer has met all its obligations upon retrenchment.

12. I also found that the super fund money is the responsibility of a third party who manages the super fund. It’s not the duty of the plaintiff to pay it out to its retrenchment employee.

13. The respondent has to lodge a claim with the Super fund institution in order to be paid any money belonging to him. So it is evident that any non-payment of any Super fund money did not create any entitlement for the respondent to continue to occupy the said premises. He has other avenues at low to deal with the Super fund institution. As evidence in all the cases cited the respondent has no legal or equitable right to continue to occupy the premises after he had been retrenched. He has been paid his full entitlement and the payment of the Super fund is not part of that obligation on the part of the employer.

14. Respondent should not be in the house any more and so I now grant the order sought and the respondent be evicted from the said premises after sixty (60) days as of today in default Warrant of Eviction to be issued.

Complainant: Joseph Jonah of RDB Legal Section
Defendant: Brian Koningi of Koningi Lawyers