Piapia v Yau [2008] PGDC 56; DC744 (7 April 2008)

DC744

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

GFCi 28-29 of 2007

BETWEEN:

JAMES PIAPIA
Complainant

AND:

SIPA YAU
First Defendant

AND:

JOE KAUPA
Second Defendant

Kundiawa: M. Gauli, PM
2008: April 03rd, 7th

CIVIL - Claims for damages – Malicious prosecution – Illegal arrest and unlawful detention – District Court lacks jurisdiction.

Cases Cited:
Nil

References:
Nil

Counsels:
For the Complainant - In person
For the Defendant - No Appearance

07 April 2008

DECISION OF THE COURT

M. Gauli; PM: The Complainant Mr. James Piapia is the Patrol Officer or Kiap and the officer in-charge at Kup Sub-District office in Chimbu Province. The first defendant Sipa Yau is the former employee of the Electgoral Commission. The second defendant Joe Kaupa is the Senior Constable attached to Karilmaril Police Detachment, in Chimbu Province. The Complainant claims damages of K10,000.00 against the defendants for wrongful or false imprisonment.

There being no appearance by the defendants, the Court proceeded ex parte pursuant to s.143 of the District Courts Act. This provision allows the Court to hear the proceedings exparte where it appears on Oath that the defendant to had been duly served with the summons and failed to appear in Court. The defendants were served with the summons on the 06th February 2008 but have not be appearing since of the returnable date of the February 2008.

The Complainant and his witnesses Mr. Manau Manga and Constable Nathan Polega gave sworn evidence. Basically their evidence is as follows. During the 2007 National Election, Mr. James Piapia was the assistance returning officer for the Digine LLG area while Mr. M. Manga was the returning officer. The Constable Nathan Polega was engaged by the Electoral Commission providing security to the electoral manager, electoral office and its personals and properties during the election. The first defendant Mr. Sipa Yau was one of the polling officials.

It is the evidence before this Court that on the 30th October 2007 Mr. James Piapia was accused of stealing K700.00 belonging to the electoral commission for the polling officials allowances by the first defendant. The second defendant then arrested him and held him in custody for five hours at Kundiawa police cell. He was released after paying K200.00 bail. He was never charged for the alleged stealing up to this day. He sued the defendants and claims for wrongful imprisonment.

The question to be asked her is: “Whether or not this Court has the jurisdiction to hear damages for wrongful imprisonment”. The jurisdictions of this Court are as provided under s.21 of the District Courts Act. In terms of the monetary jurisdictions, this Court has powers for claims up to K10,000.00 as per s.21(1) of the District Courts Act. However s.21(4) sets out number of claims that this Court does not have the jurisdiction of. This provision states and I quote:

“(4) A Court has no jurisdiction in the following Cases –

(a) where the validity or effect of devise or bequest or a limitation under a will or settlement, or under a document in the nature of a settlement, is in dispute; or

(b) the infringement of trade names; or

(c) an action for or in the nature of slander of title; or

(d) an action for illegal arrest, false imprisonment or and Malicious prosecution; or

(e) for seduction or breach of promise to marry; or

(f) when the title to land is bona fide in dispute.”

The cause of action and the nature of the complaint in the present proceeding before this Court clearly falls into s.21 (4)(d) of the District Courts Act. The Complainant’s complaint reads in part –

“The Defendant Maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause executed arrest on the plaintiff for alleged criminal offence of stealing K700.00 and was unlawfully detained at Kundiawa Police Station detention cell block for 5 hours ---“

I is clear as crystal that the complainant in this action is claiming damages for illegal arrest, false or unlawfully imprisonment and or malicious prosecution. And I find that this Court does not have the jurisdiction to determine this cause of action. This is the matter within the jurisdiction of the National Court. For the reasons given above that this Court lacks jurisdiction. I consider that this cause of action be withdrawn only.

For the Complainant - In person
For the Defendants - No Appearance