Soukin v Alwana [2009] PGDC 43; DC866 (5 June 2009)

DC866

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]

DC NO: 09 of 2009

BETWEEN

ANTON SOUKIN
Complainant

AND

JOYCE ALWANA
Defendant

AITAPE: M Samala
2009: 15 May, 05 June

CIVIL – Tort of strict liability - No need to prove animal trespass and nuisance, Domestic pigs destroying food garden, Defendant denied liability, Trial, Admission of liability, Find liable at law.

Counsel:

In person, the Complainant
In person, the Defendant

05 June 2009

M Samala: The complainant sues for total loss of food garden, claiming K3 000.00 after making four attempts on different occasions telling defendant and her family members to keep pigs inside the fence. In fourth sighting, he spared the pig in the garden killing it and on reporting to defendant the defendant’s relatives became angry and assaulted him as well as causing extensive damage to the food garden.

Complainant is employed as a common labourer at Aitape’s Raihu District Hospital originally from Nuku District while defendant a nursing sister from Aitape District and also employee of the same hospital.

FACTS

Brief facts were that, complainant since late 2008 made several complaints to defendant and her relatives about their pigs venturing freely into his food garden and eating food crops where requested the pigs be kept behind fence. They were ignorant as they kept them for just a short while and set them out roaming freely again. The other garden owners also complained the same. Many times he used to chase them of his garden and on second and third major destructions he reported to LLG Ward Committee and to Police, still they did nothing even not compensating him as told and on the fourth time he was tired and had to kill one of the pig.

This matter came before court on 15 May for liability plea, defendant denied liability stating in defence, it wasn’t true her pig or others they owned destroyed the garden but wild pigs did and that domestic pigs never entered complainant’s garden and adjourned for trial.

EVIDENCE

The complainant intends calling three witnesses but the matter in trial was discontinued in trial after close of complainant’s evidence in chief and cross examination when defendant in cross examination admits to facts adduced by complainant and so, trial discontinued with judgment entered against defendant in complainant’s favour.

For benefit of parties in this judgment the brief summary of facts are that, complainant stated he knows defendant and her relatives very well and respected them so much since they used to share things together. However, over time the pigs made that relationship went bad after he complained against complainants pigs destroying his food garden many times and later had killed one and the complainant’s male relatives assaulted him and destroyed most of his crops.

It started in 2008 he was complaining to them over pigs eating up his food garden. Many times on seeing them in the garden during day time he chased them off. On second and third incident of major destructions caused to the food crops, he took the matter to LLG Ward Committee and to Police where defendant and her relatives being pig owners were called up and told to keep pigs in the fence, as well as, settling him with an amount of K500.00 as compensation for loss of food crops suffered. Defendant’s relatives killed a pig soon after and told him they’ll raise K500.00 and pay but later changed mind and told him they’ll give a live pig worth K500.00 so he can sell himself. Unfortunately, he waited and they never compensated him and all went silent.

In January 2009, towards the end of the month he sighted the pigs again eating his garden in the afternoon and this time he was determined to kill one as he didn’t like what the pigs doing to his food crops. After spearing the pig killing it, he went immediately and informed defendant’s relatives to collect it. It was then that, relatives identified the pig belonging to defendant, there they became angry and did extensive damage to other food crops in the garden, so as, stealing some and also went to him and assaulted him for killing the pig.

He said he did all he could to reasonably assist as he respected the family and the defendant but in return they didn’t respect him and respect the hardship he faced having all food garden destroyed by the vicious animals they owned and even was assaulted by defendant’s male relatives. And so, he had no choice but to come to court and claim compensation in the same of K3 000.00 for all the losses he and family suffered as they had wasted so much time and labour in the garden but pigs destroyed all their food crops. Further, the defendant with her relatives had also lied to compensate him and family on destructions the pigs did.

Having heard complainant’s evidence and upon defendant’s free admission of liability during cross examination state of complainant’s evidence in chief against earlier defence the wild pigs ate up the garden. Court accepts admission and I find defendant and relatives negligent by not keeping the pigs in the fen and found her liable for animal nuisance in the destruction of the food crop in the garden own by complainant.

The complainant again submits he felt sorry for defendant and asked court to reduce claim to half, an amount of K1 250.00 be sufficient since knowing well the defendant as all are living together at Raihu Hospital.

Upon that request, Court accepts complainant’s request for reduced amount and award compensation in the sum of K1 250.00 as requested.

And accordingly, with reasons stated, I enter judgment against defendant and ordered that the sum of K1 250.00 be paid within two months from today’s date in default warrant of execution be issued.

_____________________

Unrepresented matter.