Honjuru v Weiba [2007] PGDC 140; DC807 (31 January 2007)

DC807

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

DCCi 164 of 2006

BETWEEN

ROBIN HONJURU
First Complainant

EBBY HONJURU
Second Complainant

AND

JERRY WEIBA
First Defendant

CLAIRE WEIBA
Second Defendant

Kainantu: I Kurei

2007: January 31

Cases Cited

Nil

References

Nil

Counsel

For the Complainants – In Person

For the Defendants – In Person

31 January 2007

DECISION

Facts

Both parties prior to this Court proceeding opened and operated a Hair Salon as Potters Hair & Beauty Salon in the township of Kainantu on Partnership basis.

The complainant initially operated in their residence.

After some convincing by the defendants both parties entered into the Partnership relationship/venture by agreeing and signing a Memorandum of Agreement (MOU) on 21 September 2005.

The venture then operated in 2006 and on 16 July 2006 the partnership was dissolved due to problems, (complainant does not specify).

The understanding reached in the MOU was for parties to own on fifty/fifty (50/50) basis.

Now the complainant claim for bond fee and share in the partnership business.

Issue

Are the complainants entitled what they are claiming?

Law

Law of Contract

Partnership Act, ch 148 – Not applicable

Memorandum of Agreement

Summary of Evidence

The operation of the partnership by both parties basically is based on the MOU.

The MOU makes it clear on how the business shall be conducted.

Basically the MOU clearly states in four (4) headings:-

1. Benefits
   
2. Management
   
3. Debt/Rentals
   
4. Governing Law
   

Both parties operated for nine (9) months and there-after the legal relationship ended.

The complainants’ in the Statement of Claim do not specify what problem (Affidavit of Ebby para 6).

Defendant Jerry Weiba outlines in para 4 of his Defence Statement on the reasons which caused the ending of the partnership. Basically it is over a choice of employee, and ventures not making money. Second complainant retuned from out of province trip and seeing revenue lower then usual and complaining of that resulted in the break down of the relationship that was created.

Partnership Act is not applicable in this solution as both parties had not registered their venture with the authorities.

If it was registered this Court would not have the jurisdiction due to application of s 1 of the Act.

Nevertheless the common law principle of contract is applicable in my view.

As stated above the complainant have not clearly set out in their claim nor by way of evidence substantiate what is being claimed.

In my humble view what is being contested in Court is more of on personality then on actual business venture.

If not for the first defendant’s admission no award should be made.

However this Court will recess what first defendant made admission of.

Orders made accordingly.

For the Complainants – In Person
For the Defendants – In Person