Maniha v Maniha [2009] PGDC 53; DC874 (17 June 2009)

DC874

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

DCCi 111 of 2009

BETWEEN

REGINA MANIHA
Complainant

AND

IPAI MANIHA
Defendant

Goroka: G Madu
2009: May14, June 9, 17

CIVIL - Claim for compensation for damages to properties - caused by marital problem – couples living separately – damaging of properties improper – liable to pay some compensation .

Cases Cited
Nil

References
Nil

Counsel:

Regina Maniha, for the Complainant
Ipai Maniha, for the Defendant

17th June 2009

RESONS FOR DECISON

G Madu: The complainant is taking a civil suit against the defendant for wilfully damaging her household goods and electrical appliances and claims compensation.

2. The facts perceived are both the complainant and defendant are married couples. Complainant resides in her own house at Council Camp West Goroka with her children. She claims that on 18th January 2009 the defendant damaged the properties worth substantial amount.

3. The complainant stated that she had an argument with the defendant because of his lack of fatherly support and presence in providing for the children’s needs and necessity. The defendant after the argument drove down to the complainant’s house and using the iron spade went berserk by destroying the household goods and electrical appliances estimated to be K7, 366.00.

4. The defendant admitted to destroying of household goods and electrical appliances but disputed the amount claimed as per the list submitted by the complainant. He also stated that he was humiliated and provoked by the complainant and as a result he went to the house and damaged the properties.

5. The issues are:

1. whether the defendant’s action was proper under the circumstances.

2. Whether he is liable to pay the whole amount claimed by the Complainant.

6. The defendant contends that he had no intention to damage the properties which he had spent a lot of money to build and buy to make the dwelling comfortable for the complainant to live with the children. He stated that the assault on him and his personnel assistant was only a cover up by the complainant on her drinking out with a male companion.

7. The defendant stated that on the night in question he was provoked by complainant’s suspicious behaviour which made him angry and damaged the properties. He argued that the properties had been accumulated and built with the money he solely contributed with no contribution from the complainant.

8. The complainant submitted that though it may be true that the defendant bought the properties, they became her properties by virtue of her marriage to the defendant and for this reason the defendant had no right to damage the properties. Further the facts also disclosed that the marital relationship the couple had gone sore since the defendant was seen another women and the defendant was not living with the complainant.

9. The court is satisfied that in the given circumstances the action of the defendant in damaging the household goods and electrical appliances belonging to the complainant was not proper as he no right to do so.

10. On the second issue of whether the defendant is liable to pay the full amount claimed in the complainant. The complainant in her submission stated that what she has provided in her schedule of costs are replacement cost as most of the properties had depreciated their values. The defendant argued that the prices given were not realistic and highly inflated. I also take note of defendant’s statement that he had replaced some of the properties. This is true because from the time the incident occurred to the date of hearing it is well over a year and there is a probability that the defendant had replaced some of the items and that he def had shown that he is a responsible father by supporting the complainant financially which she admitted.

11. The court is satisfied that the defendant has demonstrated that he wants the best for his children by renovating the complainant’s house into a two bedroom and buying household goods and electrical appliances. If he has done the damage, it is unlikely that he will allow the situation to go for a long time and to see his children suffer. The honourable thing that a responsible father would do is provide the best and it is probable that this is what the defendant has done to restore the complainant and her children to comfortable living.

12. In all fairness I find that the defendant is liable to pay some compensation to the complainant and award the compensation in the sum of Two thousand kina (K2,000.00)

_________________________________

Lawyer for the Complainant: Regina Maniha
Lawyer for the Defendant: Ipai Maniha