Kuambef v Zareba [2009] PGDC 29; DC887 (12 May 2009)

DC887

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

COMPLAINT NO 20 OF 2009

JOSEPH KUAMBEF
Complainant

AND

DAVID ZAREBA
First Defendant

AND

EZEKIEL ZAREBA
Second Defendant

AND

KERIEN ZAREBA
Third Defendant

LIHIR: B.TASIKUL
2009: MAY, 12

JUDGEMENT

TASIKUL, BRUCE: The complainant is claiming K2000.00 being the amount he paid to the first and the second defendant as bride price payment for the third defendant. The complainant claims that the third defendant was his wife, because she has left him, he now wants the money he paid as bride price returned to him.

2. The third defendant is like a daughter to both the first and second defendant. When she came from Lae she was living with them at Samo village. She was chased out of the house at Samo, and was wandering around Lihir township when she was taken by a Good Samaritan namely Steven Gasgas to his residence.

3. The defendant Kerien with her child lived with the Gasgas family for some months at Londolam where they stay. That is when the complainant approached Steven and his wife asking about Kerien. Steven told the complainant that it’s the own choice weather they want to marry or just be friend. The complainant then paid K200.00 and traditional shell money called Miss to the Gasgas family as according to the local custom in what they normally refer to as baim shame.Kerien left Stevens home and decided to live with Joseph at his house. They both lived together for almost four years as husband and wife.

4. During this period of cohabitation Kerien performed her duty as a wife and Joseph also performed his as a husband.Joesph spent his money taking care of Kerien and her child from the previous relationship. However Kerien left Joseph and went to Kavieng where she enters into a new relationship with another man.

5. The reason why she left Joseph basically because she felt that her life has been threatens. The complainant at all times has been always jealous about her. There are times the complainant would take her panties and bras and hide them. He would also cut her hair while she was asleep and hide them. The third defendant was younger then the complainant that was why he was doing these things to her.

6. When Kerien left him, the complainant approached the first and second defendant and gave them this payment. He claims K2000.00, while the defendants claims only K1000.00 The defendants claims that this money was not payment of bride price, but as compensation to their daughter for the way the complainant was treating her.

7. I have no dough that Joseph has spent so much of his money on Kerien and her child during the past years they were living together.

8. The issues that I need to be answer are: (1) Is the payment made was bride price as claim by the complainant? (2) Weather or not the complainant is entitled for the repayment of the money he spent on Kerien?

9. To answer the first question I considered the evidence adduced by the complainant in whom he stated that he gave David and Ezekiel Zareba K2000.00.This payment was delivered to them personally by the complainat.Both admitted received K1000.00 and not K2000.00, however the payment was not bride price, but as compensation for the evil things he has been doing to Kerien.

10. The payment was made after Kerien has left him, so the question is was it genuinely for bride price or he was trying to give the two brothers the money to pursue them to release Kerien back to him. If he was serious about bride price payment why didn’t he pay them during the times he and Kierien were living together? Why then wait until Kerien left him and then come to pay for bride price.

11. I of the view that he was not genuine about bride price but was looking for ways to have Kerien returned to him, and the only way was to go through her fathers. Iam therefore not satisfied that he was serious about paying bride price, but another form of convincing both defendants to retuned Kerien to him.

12. I now turns to the second question of weather he is entitle for the refund of all the money he spent on Kerien and her child during the period of their cohabitation.

13. The complainant further claim that he spent money on Kerien and her child which he wanted them to repay it back. Even thought it was not stated in his summon I think it important for me to highlight on the issue as the complainant has strongly emphasis this on his evidence.

14. In the case of Bulage v Ben [1990] PNGLR 437 his honour Brunton J (as he was then) held that:

There is no statute that gives a man rights to sue his girl friend for money spent on her. In this country there are no rule of the law developed by the courts to supports such action.

He further states:

There is no cause of action under which a de facto husband or wife may recover the everyday expenditure incurred during the cause of the relationship because they are not matters to which the courts attributed a contractual relationship.

15. In applying the above principles on this case as it is similar in some instances Aim satisfied that the complainant does not have the right to claims his money back. The situation would have been different if there was evidence in custom seeking such order. Therefore I find that there is no cause of action. This matter is there dismissed.

________________________

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON
DEFENDANTS IN PERSONS