Narato v Nia [2007] PGDC 78; DC624 (15 June 2007)

DC624

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

GFCi 16 of 2007

BETWEEN

HABA NARATO
Complainant

AND

DONALD NIA
Defendant

Goroka: M Gauli, PM
2007: June 15

CIVIL - Claim unpaid debts for services rendered – Part payment made – Job left incomplete.

Cases Cited
Nil

References
Nil

Counsel
For the Complainant - In Person
For the Defendant - In Person

15 June 2007

DECISION OF THE COURT

M Gauli, PM: In this action the Complainant Mr. Haba Narato claimed against the defendant Mr. Donald Nia the sum of K10, 000.00 being the outstanding payment for the services rendered since July 2003.

2. It is the evidence before this Court that the defendant engaged the services of the complainant in the year 2002 to build a permanent residential house at the defendant’s Eroka village in the Obura Wonenara District in the Eastern Highlands Province. The building was a three bedroom house measuring 12 metre by 12 metre square. The complainant is a carpenter by profession and employed by the Lae Builders company. The complainant drew up the plan of the building himself. He started the construction in the year 2002 and completed the work in 2003. The building has three bedrooms, an office space, a kitchen, living room, toilet, shower room, verandah and electrical fittings. It is a modern high covenant house in the village setting. The building is partly incomplete especially the partition to separate the kitchen from the living room, the walls to separate the toilet from the shower room, the laundry area, the hot water solar system not been installed, the windows and the ground floor. These were not completed because the defendant has not supplied the materials. During the construction the complainant was provided the accommodation and meals by the defendant. These facts are not indisputed.

3. What is been disputed is the labour costs. The complainant claimed that his labour cost for the building of the type was K25, 000.00 which the defendant had agreed. The defendant only paid him K15, 000.00 and the balance of K10, 000.00 still remained outstanding. The defendant denied agreeing to K25, 000.00 of the labour costs. He however confirmed paying the K15, 000.00 which he claimed to be sufficient for the work done.

4. The issue based on the disputed facts are these:-

1. Whether the K25, 000.00 labour cost was agreed to by the defendant.
   
2. Whether the K25, 000.00 labour cost covers the completion of the building.
   
3. Whether the complainants entitled to his claim of the K10, 000.00 which remains outstanding.
   

5. Issue No. 1: Whether the K25, 000.00 labour cost was agreed to by the defendant.

There was no written agreement entered into by the parties regarding the cost of the labour. The complainant in his affidavit evidence marked EXHIBIT ‘B’ said that before he constructed the building, he put up the profile and at that time he asked the defendant how much he will pay him when the building is completed. The defendant’s reply was, “You yourself give me the total cost of the house you think you will construct”. The complainant told him that the house to be built is 12m x 12m which will cost about K80, 000.00 but the complainant will reduce his costs to K25, 000.00. The defendant agreed to that figure and so he started working on the building.

6. The defendant in his oral evidence in Court said that the complainant did fix his labour cost to K25, 000.00 but he (defendant) did not agree to that amount.

7. Both parties have no witnesses at the time of their discussions. From the evidence of the parties as stated above, I am satisfied that the complaint did put to the defendant his labour costs at K25, 000.00. The defendant said that he did not accept this figure. However, the defendant did not proposed to the complainant whatever amount that he had in mind. I find that the complainant was told by the defendant to propose his labour cost before the actual construction commence and the complainant did give his costs, but the defendant did not come up with his own figure instead he allowed the complainant to commence constructing the building. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the defendant had orally agreed to the amount of K25, 000.00 as being the complainant’s labour cost. And so I answer the question: Yes the defendant orally agreed to pay K25, 000.00 as labour costs to the complainant.

8. Issue No. 2: Whether the K25, 000.00 labour cost covers the completion of the building.

The evidence for the complainant as per his affidavit evidence marked EXHIBIT ‘B’, is that the total labour cost is K25, 000.00 when the house is completed. This amount was agreed to by both parties as per my findings in Issue No. 1 above. The defendant is entitled to pay that amount to the complainant when all the constructions required in that project is completed. The complainant is not entitled to the K25, 000.00 where the job required is not completed. The evidence presented before this Court had established that the building is incomplete. The constructions on the building is incomplete because the defendant was not able to provide the required materials. That failure is on the defendant himself. To date the defendant has not made available the necessary materials for the complainant to complete the unfinished job. Despite the failure on the part of the defendant in providing the materials, the oral agreement entered by the parties was that the K25, 000.00 labour cost covers the completions of all the job description in the construction of the building.

9. The plan of the building was made by the complainant himself. He did not provide to this court his job descriptions of the project. Nor did he give evidence as to how the defendant wanted the building to be like and or what is to be installed on the building. The burden is on the complainant to establish by the job description to satisfy this Court. In the absence of a job description I am satisfied that the project was left incomplete and it remained to be incomplete up to the time of this decision by the Court. The K25, 000.00 labour cost covers the total completion of the work required on the project.

10. Issue No. 3: Whether the complainant is entitled to his claim of the K10, 000.00 which remains outstanding.

I have found that the parties have agreed that K25, 000.00 to be the total labour costs for the completion for the building. I have found that the project had not been completed to date. The defendant had made a total payment of K15, 000.00 for. The incompleteness of the building is on the failure of the defendant. It has nothing to do with the complainant. The total labour cost of K25, 000.00 is for the completeness of the building as agreed by the parties. The jobs that are yet to be done in order to complete project including putting up the walls to separate the kitchen from the living room; the walls to separate the toilet from the shower room; the solar system for the hot water; laundry area; window glasses and the ground floor. There is quite a huge amount of work still required to complete the project.

11. There is also evidence that during the construction of the building the defendant provided both accommodation and meals. However, there was no agreement by the parties that where the defendant provides accommodation and meals, allowance will be made to deduct from the total labour cost. And so I do not consider these expenses to be part of the labour costs.

12. I am satisfied, however, that the project had been left incomplete. There is still a huge amount of work required to complete the project. There is no indication by the parties as to the cost of the unfinished jobs on the project. My estimate of the labour costs on the unfinished jobs, though I am no a professional builder, would be in the vicinity of K10, 000.00, when taking into account of the rising costs of living these days. Accordingly I find that the complainant is not entitled to his claim of K10, 000.00 outstanding debt. And I make an order that the case be dismissed and the defendant discharged. There be no costs, each party meet their own costs.

For the Complainant – In Person
For the Defendant – In Person