Yando v Kuima Security Services [2007] PGDC 113; DC646 (16 October 2007)

DC646

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

DCCi 128 of 2007

BETWEEN

AMON YANDO
Complainant

AND

KUIMA SECURITY SERVICES
Defendant

Goroka: F MANUE
2007: October 02, 16

CIVIL - Contract – The terms of the agreement – whether labour and material costs was part of the agreement.

HELD - Costs of the finished products was an integral part of the costs of labour and materials.

Cases Cited
Nil

References
Nil

Counsel
Complainant: In Person
Defendant: In Person

16 October 2007

REASONS FOR DECISION

F Manue: The complainant Mr. Amon Yando had sued the defendant, Kuima Security Services for a total of K2, 885.00. He claimed that on or about 01 January, 2006 at Goroka he provided services to the defendant in terms of Labour and materials by making 32 bows and 110 arrows at the cost of K2, 135.00.

2. Other claims he made were for expenses of K675.00 for PMV fares and K74.00 for telephone calls in following up for payment of the claim, interest and costs.

3. The issues are whether there was an agreement for the complainant to provide the items- 32 bows and 110 arrows – to the defendant; and if so whether the agreement extended to labour and materials as well.

4. And if there was an agreement to pay for the bows and arrows, whether the defendant had failed to honour it, resulting in him making incidental expenses as PMV and telephone expenses.

5. The complainant testified that in January 2006 he went to the defendants office based at Faniufa (Mambu Market). He approached the Manager, Mr. Francis Kabia in the office where the complainant showed samples of bows and arrows to defendants branch manager.

6. He told the defendants manager that he wanted to sell the bows for K15.00 if he needed them for his security personnel. The manger then proposed to buy each bow for K10.00. He said after thinking about the offer, he accepted to sell them at K10.00 for each bow and would accept K300.00 for the 32 bows.

7. He said he went home and made 110 spears and returned after three (3) weeks with the 110 spears.

8. He went to the defendants branch office with the bows, spears and 12 batons (coffee sticks). He was paid K120.00 for the batons. He said he set the price for the 110 spears at 80 toea each, which calculates to K88.00. He has been following up on the claim since.

9. On 06 October 2006, he was asked to do an invoice which he did and served on the defendants branch manager. Invoice was no produced in Court. On 13 November 2006, he obtained a warning letter against the defendant which was not adhered to, so the matter was pursued by way of Summons.

10. The defendant was represented by its branch manager, Mr. Francis Kabia and he testified on behalf of the defendant. The witness said, it was around 28 June 2006 when the complainant approached him in his office. He said the complainant was looking for a market to sell 32 bows and 110 spears. The complainant entered with 5 or so samples of bow. The two talked and Mr. Kabia proposed to buy at a price of K10.00 for each bow. The also asked for batons (coffee sticks). The witnesses stated that the complainant went home to make the bows.

11. Before he went Mr. Kabia gave K10.00 to the complainant as his bus fare. The witness denied hiring the complainant to make the 32 bows and 110 arrows. The witness stated that the complainant later returned with 32 bows and 110 arrows. The witness stated that the complainant later returned with 32 bows and 110 spears which were valued at K10.00 and 80 toea for each item respectively.

12. The witness also stated that 26 extra bow strings were also brought which he valued at 50 toea each.

13. The witness, upon receiving the items said he paid K120.00.

14. On or around June 2006 the complainant went to see the defendants Manager with a sample of the type of bows he made. At that time the complainant made an offer for sale of K15.00 for each bow to the defendants branch manager. The defendant however counter-offered to by each bow at K10.00 each. This price was agreed upon.

15. And so in my view there was an agreement that the bows would be sold at K10.00 each. That calculates to K320.00 for the 32 bows. I note in the negotiations that nothing was said about labour and materials costs. The discussions was not based on engaging the complainant to provide labour, materials and payment for the finished products.

16. I infer that the complainant was only offering for sale the finished products. That assumably meant that labour and material costs were an integral part of the finished products price.

17. Having struck the deal, the complainant returned home and made 110 spears, 12 batons and 32 bows which the defendant agreed to buy at an agreed price of K10.00 each – K320.00. Initially, in around June 2006 the parties did not strike a price for the items as the arrows, batons and the bow strings were not ready and show cased to the defendant.

18. These products were made and brought by the defendant anyhow, with the 32 bows. On the time, which was about three (3) weeks after the initial date of the negotiations, when the products were brought to the defendant, the complainant proposed to sell the arrows at 80 toea each, which calculates to K88.00. There was no price set for the buttons and the 26 extra brow strings.

19. The defendant however, said that the bow strings were a compliment to selling the other finished products to the defendant and no price was given.

20. As to the buttons, K120.00 was paid for them. This is not disputed by the complainant. The question of labour and materials, as in the case of the bows, was not discussed initially. And again I infer that the 80 toea price for each arrow took into account the labour and material costs.

21. I find that for the 32 bows, there was an agreement between the parties to buy and sell at an agreed price of K10.00 x 32 bows to a total of K320.00 and for the arrows at an agreed price of 80 toea x 110 arrows to a total of K88.00. That brings to K408.00.

22. The complainant claims that he had to travel in and out of his village in Obura to Goroka via Kainantu 26 times in order to follow up on the payments or claim. He claimed that each time he asked to see the defendants Goroka branch manager, the defendants guards would either refuse him or bar him or give excuses that the manager was not in.

23. This was denied by the branch manager. I accept that the complainant had been following up on his claim till this time, when the matter is before the Court. It however cannot be verified whether he had come in and out 26 times and whether he had spent K676.00 on PMV fares alone.

24. As for his other claim of K74.00 on phone bills in following up on the claim, I am also not satisfied that he made the calls to that value. There was no evidence anyway to support the incidental expenses.

25. In considering incidental costs I would only award K300.00 for PMV fares, as there is evidence he had travelled in and out to follow up on his claim but did not verify the number of trips he made. On the balance of probability I find that the parties agreed that the complainant would provide 32 bows at K10.00 each and 110 arrows at 80 toea each, which calculates in total to K408.00.

26. I also find that incidental costs were made and I award K300.00.

27. The defendant Kuima Security Services is therefore ordered to pay the complainant:

- K408.00 - for bows and arrows

- K300.00 - incidental costs

- K 70.80 - 10% interest

- K778.80 - Sub total

- K 52.00 - Costs

- K830.80 - Grand Total

28. Payments to be made within one (1) month in default redress.

29. Orders accordingly.

Complainant: In Person
Defendant: In Person