Namba v Gabia [2008] PGDC 62; DC740 (11 April 2008)

DC740

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

GFCi 81-86 of 2008

BETWEEN

NICHLAIS NAMBA
Complainant

AND

PETER GABIA
First Defendant

AND

PAUL UMBA
Second Defendant

AND

STEVEN OLALIP
Third Defendant

AND

MICHAEL KALAUT
Fourth Defendant

AND

JOHN NOAH
Fifth Defendant

AND

ROBIN ASUE
Sixth Defendant

Kundiawa: M. GAULI, PM
2008: April 09th, 11th

CIVIL - Defamation – Published by letter to General Manager Human Resources of PNG Power Ltd containing defamatory statements – Stealing computer – Unauthorized travels – Unauthorised allowances and overtime claims – Employing own relatives – Investigation by PPL on alleged complaints still pending.

Cases Cited:
Nil

References:
Nil

Counsels:
For the Complainant - Ms. R. Kot of Warner Shand Lawyers
For the Defendant - No Appearance

11 April 2008

DECISION OF THE COURT

M. GAULI: The complainant Nichlais Namba is the Acting Manager with the PNG Power Limited in Kundiawa. The defendants Peter Gabia, Paul Umba, Steven Olalip, Michael Kalaut, John Noah and Robin Asue are also employees of the PNG Power Limited in Kundiawa as operational technical team.

On 24th of January 2008 the defendants wrote a letter addressed to the General Manager Human Resources of the PNG Power Limited (PPL) in which they raised number of concerns about the conduct of Mr. Nichlais Namba in which they said that:

1. He disconnected and removed a brand new computer from the workshop and he kept it and used it for almost a year, an act of stealing PPL property.

2. He regularly travels to his home village in Mt. Hagen every weekend and spends one or two nights in Mt. Hagen and travels once or twice during weekdays.

3. During 2007 Election he roosted himself for every night standby and claimed allowances and overtime when he was not a technically oriented officer.

4. He employs his own relatives from Mt. Hagen to PPL Kundiawa.

The copies were circulated to the Regional Manager, Highlands and to all the Centre Managers.

The parties were required by Court to file affidavit evidence which they all have done. The complainant has only himself who filed affidavit. The defendants filed two affidavits, one being a joint affidavit by all the defendants and a separate affidavit by defendant Peter Gabia. The defendants do not dispute writing the alleged defamatory letter to the General Manager Human Resources and copies circulated to the Highlands Regional Manager and to the Centre Managers. However the defendants deposed that their complaints or concerns were based on truth and facts and those matters were referred to their National Office for investigation which investigations are still underway.

The defendants did not personally appear in Court on the 09th of April 2008 but their affidavits were already in the Court file. The defendants having failed to appear in Court Ms. R. Kot the counsel for the complainant applied for exparte trial pursuant to s.143 of the District Courts Act which the Court granted it. The counsel had also filed her submission which I had the chance to read it and considered its content. However I should not overlook the fact that the defendants have filed their affidavit before the trial date on the 9th April. The defendants have also written to the Kundiawa District Court on 14th February 2008 requesting the Court to put this proceedings on hold until the PPL Investigation Team and the PPL Auditors investigations results are known as these two bodies are currently working on them. It appears to me that there are investigations already put in place to look into the four allegations the defendants levelled at the complainant. If this Court is to proceed to make decisions to dispose of this cause of action while pending the internal investigation yet to make their findings, I am of the view that this Court would be doing injustice to the defendants. If internal investigations show that there is no truth in the matters alleged by the defendant then the complainant could proceed with this cause of action. The Court is mindful that one of the defences in the actions for defamation is the defence of truth under s.10 of the Defamation Act. And the decision of the internal investigation would some what assist the proceeding in this cause of action of the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations complained of.

For the reasons I have stated above I come to a conclusion that this proceedings be stayed until the outcome of the internal investigations are concluded. The PPL Investigations team should conduct and complete their investigations within the next six (6) months. Failure to do this by the PPL, the complainant may proceed with this action in Court.

For the Complainant - Ms. R. Kot of Warner Shand Lawyers
For the Defendants - No Appearance