Polenduo v Yenkaromo [2008] PGDC 120; DC909 (5 September 2008)

DC909

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

DC 124 of 2008

BETWEEN

PETER POLENDUO
Complainant

AND

NICHOLAS YENKAROMO
Defendant

Wewak: D Susame
2008: 02, 05 September

CIVIL LAW - Unlawful conversion of property – whether there was unlawful Conversion – whether defendant acted without authority to cause of property.

Cases Cited:
None

References:

Counsel:
In Person, For the Complainant
In Person, For the Defendant

02, 05 September 2008

D Susame: This is an action for unlawful conversion of property. The complainant claims that the defendant sold the engine of an Isuzu NPR33 truck which the complainant owns. For that he is suing for K6, 000-00 in damages.

ARGUMENTS

2. The complainant’s claim is that, he purchased the vehicle for K1, 500-00 from the Rural Development Bank, Wewak, East Sepik Province, when the bank caused the sale of the vehicle by tender in 1995. The community of Neimo Village where he comes from did not contribute toward the purchase of the vehicle. Their financial contribution was merely for the purchase of spare parts. The defendant who also hails from the same village has no lawful authority to sell the engine to Kwanjikai Car Wreckers, Wewak, East Sepik Province.

3. The Defendant contends otherwise. His claim is that the vehicle is jointly owned by the whole Neimo community. They had all contributed financially toward the purchase of the vehicle on the complainant’s invitation. Seeing that the vehicle was not running and providing transportation service to the community, those who contributed finance, demanded for the reimbursement of their money. So Christopher Inanduo who was regarded as their leader and Chairman of their Youth Group gave permission for the defendant to sell the engine for the recovery of their financial contributions. Hence, this created the whole dispute which is now in Court for deliberation.

4. The complainant relies on his own oral testimony in court. He chose not to call any witnesses. The defendant on the other hand relies on his own oral testimony and the testimony of his only witness, Christopher Inanduo.

UNCONTESTED FACTS

5. Facts which are uncontested and accepted are these. The complainant successfully bided for the vehicle when it was put on sale by tender by the Rural Development Bank, which is now known as the National Development Bank. He purchased the vehicle for K1, 500-00. At the time of the purchased, the vehicle was not in running condition so he had to put the vehicle at Toba Motors workshop for major mechanical repair. The complainant then asked the Neimo community for financial contributions for the purchase of spare parts. The village people responded favourable and came up with a total contribution of K2, 470-00. That money was not handed to the complainant. The money was used to purchase essential parts for the vehicle. No funds were used towards the purchase of the vehicle.

6. When the motor vehicle was still under repairs, Toba Motors ceased operations in Wewak. The complainant has to remove the vehicle to a certain workshop at Kaindi. It seems the complainant was not satisfied with the work at the Kaindi workshop so he removed the vehicle to a workshop (named) at Sawarin village. The vehicle remained unrepair at that workshop for quite sometime.

7. The delay in seeing the vehicle fully repaired and running eventually caused resentment and disappointments amongst those individuals who had made financial contributions. So Christopher Inanduo on behalf of the community authorized the defendant to remove the vehicle from Sawarin to his residence at Kuia settlement.

8. Owner of the workshop refused to allow removal of the vehicle unless he paid some money for the period the vehicle was at the workshop. Some time later after consulting Neimo community, defendant returned to Sawarin and successfully negotiated a settlement with the owner of the workshop. The whole body of the vehicle was retained as payment for the workshop and only the engine was removed by the defendant to his yard. After several unsuccessful attempts to sell the engine for K6, 000-00, the defendant eventually sold it to Kwanjikai Car Wreckers for K2, 000-00. However payment was withheld when the defendant started this whole dispute.

RULING

9. I have set out above most of the facts that gave rise to this case. To resolve the dispute it is important to consider the representation the complainant made to the Neimo community to solicit financial assistance and the meaning that can be construed from his representation.

10. It has been accepted that the complainant purchased the vehicle with his own funds. But he had a problem. He had purchased a motor vehicle which was not in running condition. He obviously required finance to purchase parts and have the vehicle back in good running order. There was couple of options open to him. He could have personally met all the cost of repairs or he could have borrowed money from others including people from his own village with the condition to have the money repaid in future. He decided against these two options. Instead the complainant wanted the whole community to take ownership of the vehicle which will address their transportation needs. On that basis he asked the village people for financial contributions for the purchase of essential parts and to get the vehicle running again. The village people responded favourable and came up with a contribution of K2, 470-00 towards the vehicle. I do not think it is fair for the complainant to now come to this Court and claim sole ownership of the motor vehicle after the village people had contributed substantial amount of money. In my view those who made financial contributions have some claim of right over the vehicle. I see no reason why they cannot be considered as co-owners of the motor vehicle or the engine which is the subject of this dispute. As such the village people through their leaders had locus standi and authority to ask the defendant to sell the engine on their behalf. The defendant was acting lawfully and with authority of the co-owners when he caused the sale of the engine. He had not acted unlawfully to convert the engine for his personal benefit but rather for the benefit of all the contributors. The upshot of all the discussions is that the case is dismissed.

________________________

For the Complainant, In Person
For the Defendant, In Person