Simon v Sakito [2008] PGDC 46; DC745 (27 March 2008)

DC745

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

DCi 366 of 2007

BETWEEN

AGLAI SIMON
Complainant

AND

Fr. JOSEPH SAKITO
Defendant

Kundiawa: J. SIKI
2008: March 27th

CIVIL - Claim for Breach of Contract

Cases Cited:
D & C Builders v. Rees (1966) 2 AB 615

Reference:
“Law of Contract One” by Prof. John Nongorr

Counsels:
Complainant, In Person
Defendants, In Person

27 March 2008

JUDGEMENT

J. SIKI: This is a claim for breach of contract. The plaintiff is a villager from Mingendi in Kerowagi District while the defendant is a Ghanian priest also based at the Mingendi Catholic Mission Station.

The fact show the defendant owned 4 gum trees that he intended to sell. The defendant needed timber to build a Training Centre at the Mission Station.

The parties therefore entered into an agreement fro the defendant to mill the 4 trees into sawn timber. In consideration the plaintiff offered for the timber from one of the trees would be for his use while the defendant kept the timber from the 3 trees. Secondly the defendant would pay the school fees for the plaintiffs daughter attending Kerowagi High School.

The plaintiff reduced this offer into writing in pidgin dated the 14th January 2006 and it read:

“To: Fr. Sakito, Mingende

Name: Aglai Simon

Ples: Yagle

Autstation: Karmel (Mingende)

Det: 14/01/2006

Ref: Mi tok orait long yu long katim Diwaii bilong Mi.

1. Mi givim tripela Diwai long yu katim

2. Skul fee bilong liklik girl bilong mi

3. Katim wanpela Diwai bilong wokim haus bilong mi.

Tenkyu Fr.

Sign - Aglai Simon

By this note it is crystal clear the mind of the defendant offeree that he intended for the defendant to mill 3 of the trees for his (defendant’s) use. The offeree then gave two conditions; firstly for the defendant to pay for his daughter’s High School fees and secondly to mill the 4th tree to build his own house.

In accepting the offer, the defendant executed these (2) terms of the contract agreement and paid K500.00 to Kerowagi High School in early 2006 in school fees for the plaintiffs daughter.

The defendant then fell the 4 trees and milled them into timber. The defendant kept the timber from 3 of the trees while the plaintiff kept the timber from the 4th tree pursuant to the agreement.

While all seemed to go smoothly for both parties, the plaintiff refunded the K500 School fees from Kerowagi High School and used it for himself without the defendant’s knowledge and further, he requested the defendant to mill an extra log for his use when he experienced a shortfall in timber requirements to complete his house.
The defendant objected to the plaintiffs request to mill any further log for him frustrating the relationship and triggering this action. He made known his intention to sue the plaintiff by the following note dated 25.02.07:

“Dia Pata Saito,

Hello na gutde long yu na God blesim olgeta wok bilong yu.

Mi Aglai Simon igat liklik toktok bilong tok save long yu. Tok promis bilong yu long las yia ino wok.

1. Yu tok long peim skul fi bilong pikinini bilong mi olgeta yia igo inap em pinisim skul. Yu peim skul fi bilong las yia tasol, na nau dispela yia inogat, neks yia tu bai inogat, na bihaim tu bai nogat.

2. Yu tok long baim simen bag bilong mi, em em yu no baim. Luk olsem yu gimanim mi na stilim timba bilong mi.

3. So nau bai mi kisim ol lain bilong mi na mipela bai kisim kustesen costing)bilong timba na yumi bai lukim kot. Em tasol na tenkyu.”

The plaintiff signed the letter and was copied to Bishop Henk as the defendant’s immediate superior.

By this note the plaintiff is claiming the defendant had not paid his daughter’s school fees for 2007 and feared would not for the subsequent years of her education and secondly, is saying the defendant had not bought him cement bags the defendant had promised.

For these reasons, the plaintiff is accusing the defendant of not complying with the terms of the agreement and stealing his timber, therefore would take him to court to recover the costs of timber; this action.

From the outset, this agreement amounts to a simple contract that has been reduced to writing by the offeree and is supported by consideration. The defendant’s consideration is of value and in contract law is good consideration.

The law in regards to contracts is clear insofar as offer and acceptance is concerned. In this case, the defendant offered to mill timber from a tree for the plaintiff and to pay for his daughter’s school fees. Apart from these 2 conditions, the facts tendered in evidence from the parties do not show any other, either in writing or implied.

By conduct of the defendant, it can be safely concluded that he accepted the terms of the contract when he paid K500.00 in school fees (in 2006) for the plaintiffs daughter and milling the 4 trees into timber at his own time and expenses.

The issues this raises are whether the defendant had breached any of the terms of the agreement to render the contract voidable and whether the court should consider the non payment of school fees for 2007 and thereafter and the non-purchase of cement bags as breach of the contract.

The settled rule in respect of a written agreement is that the parties are held to what they agreed to at the material time. In the current case, it is not proper for the plaintiff, having decided on the terms of the agreement by his note of the 14th January 2006, to contradict himself by adding or varying the terms of that (written) agreement.

The defendant relying on the offerees’ representation performed his obligation to his detriment and it would be unfair and inequitable for the court to allow the plaintiff to retract or alter his original representation. This principle in equity was settled in the case of D & C Builders v. Rees (1966) 2 AB 615.

It would be unfair on the defendant if the plaintiff was allowed to inject new terms or deviate from the original terms at this stage simply because the defendant had performed his obligations.

Further, it would not be in the best interest as a matter of public policy to grant such relief because it would open the flood gates for abuse by contracting parties to go to the courts needlessly.

For these reasons, the case must fail.

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