National Broadcasting Commission of Papua New Guinea v Turner [2007] PGDC 59; DC569 (21 May 2007)

DC569

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

CFCi 394 of 06

BETWEEN

NATIONAL BROADCASTING COMMISSION OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA
Complainant

AND

MATHEW TURNER
Respondent

Wabag: J Wian

2006: May 21.

CIVIL – Defendant to vacate the premises he is alleged to be occupying. The defendant was a former employee of the complainant (National Broadcasting Commission of Papua New Guinea).

Cases Cited

No case cited

References

Counsel

For the complainant – Mr Garry Punjo
For the respondent – In Person

21 May 2007

REASONS FOR DECISION

J. Wia, PM: The complainants in this matter seek the court to order the defendant to vacate the premises he is alleged to be occupying and give possession of the said premises or property namely a L 40 type duplex, residence No 1A within National Broadcasting Commission (hereinafter NBC) compound in the township of Wabag.

2. Brief Facts

The defendant was a former employee of the complainant's broadcasting office in Wabag. After being an employee of the complainants for about thirty (3) years or so, he got himself retrenched in the year 2000 and since have continuously been living in the complainant's property up to date. Attempts to remove the defendant has failed as the defendant alleged that the said property/duplex had been purchased by him under the Home Ownership Scheme.

2. Issue:

The issue is whether or not the defendant be evicted from the complainants' property.

3. The defendant in his submission in reply to the complainants' submission and in his evidence in a form of written statement on file basically argues that the National Broadcasting Commission houses throughout the country were taken over by it's staff as private houses when the rental fees reached ten thousand kina (K10, 000.00) which is the cost of the IMQ type houses.

4. Defendant has referred to a Mathew Gole who was a former employee of the National Broadcasting Commission from Mendi as an example and argues that if he, that is, Mr. Mathew Gole had any contractual relationship or any agreement with the complainants, then he should be asked to come and prove in court.

5. I consider the defendant's arguments to be very weak. There is no evidence either documentary or otherwise to satisfy the court on the balance of probabilities that he is legally entitled to live in or occupy the house or property in question after being retrenched and became no longer an employee of the complainants.

6. The defendant, if he had so wished, should have called Mathew Gole from Mendi to come and give evidence in support of his contention and shouldn't have expected the complainants to call him (Mathew Gole) as their witness.

7. It is my view that any contractual relationship between the complainants and the defendant pertaining to his employment and condition of employment regarding accommodation had ceased or came to an end on the date the defendants' retrenchment had effected. Any consideration of re-employment of the defendant by the complainants is the prerogative of the complainants. It is not legally obliged to submit to or bow down to the wishes of the people of Enga or the Enga Provincial Government for that matter.

8. I, therefore find that the defendant has illegally been occupying the premises in question.

9. I, therefore make the following orders against the defendant.

The Court orders that;

10. The defendant is to vacate and give possession of the property in question to the complainant within 14 days from today the 21^st day of May, 2007. The defendant is not to remove any properties or chattels belonging to the complainant thereof;

11. Defendant is restrained from interfering with the employees and staff of the complainant. The court further orders that in the event, the defendant fails to move out of the property within the given period, the members of the Police Force shall by reasonable force move the defendant out of the property.

Cost to be taxed.

For the Complainant: Mr Garry Punjo
For the Respondent: In Person.