William v Ben [2007] PGDC 104; DC639 (28 November 2007)

DC639

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

GFCi 38 of 2007

BETWEEN

JIM WILLIAM
Complainant

AND

HEALEY BEN & 1 OR
Defendants

Goroka: M Gauli, PM
2007: November 28

CIVIL - Claims compensation for injuries sustained for assault – Action previously dismissed by the District Court – Abuse of Court process.

Cases Cited

1. The State –v- Peter Painke [1976] PNGLR 210
2. Ronny Wabia –v- BP Exploration Co. Ltd & Ors N1697
   

References
Nil

Counsels
For the Complainant - In Person
For the Defendants - In Person

28 November 2007

DECISION OF THE COURT

M Gauli, PM: In this action filed on the 10 of September 2007, the Complainant Jim William claims compensation against the defendants for injuries he sustained to his face and scalp in an assault incident on the 28 August 2003. He claims damages in the sum of K8, 700.00.

2. Facts

On the date mention above the defendants Healey Ben and Zupatokave Kesi assaulted Samuel Gorina at Lapegu Forestry Office. The Complainant intervened to stop them. In the process of stopping the fight, the defendants punched, tackled and kicked the complainant. As a result he sustained multiple and superficial bruises to his face and scalp and his right forearm radius broken.

3. Preliminary Matters

The complainant filed his claims against the defendant at the Village Court. On the 30 September 2005 the Village Court awarded damages in favour of the complainant in the amount of K5, 700.00. When the defendants failed to pay the amount, the complainant filed fresh proceedings at the Grade Five Court in Goroka, in June 2006, Case No. 40/2006 claiming K10, 000.00 in damages. That case was dismissed on the 21 November 2006 as the cause of action was already determined by a Village Court and the judgment order is pending to be satisfied.

4. Following the dismissal of the proceedings in the District Court, the complainant filed an appeal in about March 2007 against the decision of the Village Court order of the 30 September, 2005. District Court Magistrate Mr. G. Vetunawa quashed the decision of the Village Court. No reasons were given for quashing the Village Court decision. I only assume that the decision was quashed because the Village Court exceeded its jurisdiction in awarding compensation of K5, 700.00 when the said Court could only award up to K1, 000.00 persuant to Section 45 of the Village Courts Act. No orders were made for retrial by the Village Court. The complainant filed this present proceedings on the 10 September 2007 claiming K8, 700.00 damages for injuries suffer for the same incident.

5. Abuse of Court Process

Where a cause of action had been determined by a Village Court and the Village Court decision is appealed to District Court and the District Court quashed the Village Court order, that brings that cause of action to an end unless the District Court in quashing the decision makes an order for a retrial by the Village Court. When a decision or order is quashed it has the same effect as the case been dismissed. When the cause of action is quashed or dismissed one cannot file fresh proceedings on the same matter in any other Courts including the Village Court and the District Court. Where the decision of Village Court is quashed by a Magistrate of a District Court, the only action available for the aggrieved party is to apply for a review before the Provincial Supervising Magistrate pursuant to Section 94 of the Village Court Act.

6. In the view of the Village court decision been quashed and the proceedings in the District Court on Case No. 40/2006 been dismissed, I consider that the present proceedings are an abuse of the Court process. Acting Justice O’Leary in the case of The State –v- Peter Painke [1976] PNGLR 210 described the “abuse of the process of Court as follows:

An abuse of the process of the court is an expression used to describe any use of the process or procedure of the Court for an improper purpose or in an improper way. It encompasses a wide range of situations. Thus, in civil action, to commence or persue proceedings which discloses no reasonable cause of action or which are frivolous or vexatious is an abuse of the process of the Court”.

7. I think we can go one step more from this definition of abuse of the process of the Court. And that is that for one to file fresh proceedings in any Court where that particular cause of action is quashed or dismissed would amount to an abuse of the Court process. The Court has the duty to protect its process from being abused by the litigants bringing the same cause of actions that have already been determined and disposed of, Ronny Wabia –v- BP Exploration Co. Ltd & Ors N1697 (WS 1214 of 1996) referred.

8. For the reasons stated above, I have decided not to proceed into the trial of the cause of action. And I ordered that this proceeding be dismissed being for abuse of the process of the Court.

For the Complainant - In Person
For the Defendants - In Person