Gene v Uran [2013] PGDC 4; DC2045 (29 November 2013)

DC2045

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA
HELD IN KUNDIAWA
DC NO 58-60 of 2012

BETWEEN

ESTHER GENE & 1 OR
(Complainant)

AND

ROBERT URAN
(PA DIVISION OF PROVINCIAL & LLG AFFAIRS)
(First Defendant)

AND

JACK GANO
(DISTRICT OFFICER IN CHARGE- KAMTAI DISTRICT)
(Second Defendant)

AND

SIMBU PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT
(Third Defendant)

Magistrate: Mrs Josephine Kilage, Kundiawa
29 November 2013

Civil Court: Complainant seeks damages of K2500.00 for non payment of a loan by the First and Second Defendants.

Court Process: The summons was filed on 22nd May 2012. The matter was first heard on 20th June 2012. The Complainant was present and the Defendants were not in court. The matter adjourned to 10th July 2012 and a court notice was issued the Defendants. On 10th of July 2012 there was no appearance by either party and the matter was adjourned to 10th August 2012 for mention. Both parties did not appear. Matter was further adjourned to 12th September 2012 for mention. On 12th September 2012 neither party was present and the case was adjourned sine dei and Complainant ordered to set new date of court with Clerk of Court. There has been no appearance of both parties since 10th July 2012. Both parties were informed by way of public notice to come to the court to refute or claim the damages sought. This matter is now being heard with the view of summarily disposing it.

Court notice has been given to both parties to attend to court today. Neither party attended court today.

Law: Section 88, Section 89, Section 90, Section 91 of the District Courts Act

Parties to proceeding:

Ms Esther Gene & 1 Or: No appearance
Mr Robert Uran &2 Or: No appearance

Corum: Mrs Kilage-Bal

Held:

➢ The Complainant has not appeared after 10th July 2012 to proceed with this case since filing of the summons on 22nd May 2012.

➢ This case is struck out for want of prosecution.

Ruling

➢ Case struck out for want of prosecution.

Facts:

1. Complainant filed a summons on 22nd May 2012 against the Defendants for the nonpayment of a loan of K1000.00
   
2. The First Defendant is the person whom the complainant alleges sent the Second Defendant to her house to borrow K1000.00 from her.
   
3. The Third Defendant is the employer of the First and Second Defendants and is therefore vicariously liable for their acts or omission.
   
4. The matter was first mentioned on 22nd May 2012. On that day only the Complainant appeared.
   
5. There is a proof of service attached to the file to show that the Defendants were served with their copy of the summons. The matter was adjourned to 10th July 2012.
   
6. On 10th July 2012 the matter was mentioned and neither party appeared before the court. The matter was adjourned to 10th August 2012.
   
7. On 10th August 2012 the matter was mentioned and neither party appeared before the court. The matter was adjourned to 12th September 2012.
   
8. On 12th September 2012 neither party appeared. On that day I adjourned the matter sine dei and ordered that the complainant was to come to the Registry and see the Clerk of Court and get a new date for the matter to be mentioned.
   
9. From 12th September 2012 to 29th November 2013 the complainant has not appeared to have a date set for the matter to be mentioned.
   
10. On 25 November 2013 I set the date 29th November 2013 as the date the matter was be mentioned with the view of summarily disposing the matter as the complainant has shown no sign of progressing this file.
    
11. On 29th November 2013 neither party turned up to court.
    
12. Ratio Decidendum:
    

On 12th September 2012 there was no appearance by either party so I had the matter adjourned sine dei. I ordered that the complainant would approach the counter and see the Clerk of Court for a new date for the matter to be mentioned. This is to determine whether the complainant was serious in pursuing her matter as she had only appeared once in court to seek the redress she was seeking.

From 12th September 2012 to 29th November 2013 the complainant has not come to the Registry to have a new date set for this matter to be mentioned. Since the first mention until today the complainant has only appeared once in court. This is a prolonged matter where the complainant has shown no sign of proceeding with the matter.

For the above reasons I make the following order:

Order:

The Complainants summons and complaint filed and dated 22nd May 2012 is now summarily struck out for want of prosecution.

J.Kilage-Bal-
Magistrate