Chuave District Administration v Highlands Cable TV [2013] PGDC 6; DC2047 (29 November 2013)

DC2047

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA
HELD IN KUNDIAWA

DC NO 19-20 of 2012

BETWEEN

CHUAVE DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION
(First Complainant)

AND

DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR CHUAVE
(Second Complainant)

AND

HIGHLANDS CABLES TV
(First Defendant)

AND

MR OPO BONO
(Second Defendant)

Magistrate: Josephine Kilage, Kundiawa
29 November 2013

Civil Court: Complainant seeks damages for K7,700.00 as the Defendants had sold them a faulty EMTV decoder which was purchased at K7,700.00 and the complainants seek a replacement of the faulty decoder or their money back.

Court Process: Summary disposal of a civil case where the parties have not appeared in the District Court for several mentions.

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

Parties to proceeding:

Chuave District Administration & 1 Or: No appearance
Highlands Cable TV & 1 Or: No appearance

Corum: Mrs Kilage-Bal

Held:

➢ The Complainant has not appeared to proceed with this case since 22 May 2012.
➢ This case is struck for want of prosecution.

Ruling

➢ Case struck for want of prosecution.

Facts:

1. Complainants are the Chuave District Administrator and Administration.
   
2. Defendants are a company that provides among other services EMTV decoders and the company's owner.
   
3. Defendants were alleged to have sold a faulty decoder to the Complainants.
   
4. The Complainant's bought the decoder for K7,700.00 from the Defendants.
   
5. The Complainant's have tried to get their money refunded or the decoder replaced. This has not occurred.The complainant brought the matter to the Kundiawa District Court by way of civil summons on 12th March 2012.
   
6. The matter was first mentioned in court on 4th April 2012. Neither party turned up. Matter was adjourned to 8 May 2012. On 8 May 2012 First Constable Mol Siboa appeared on behalf of the complainants while the defendant had given a reason to be absent from court. The matter was adjourned to 22 May 2012 for the complainant to file proof of service. On 22nd May 2012 neither party turned up. The matter was deferred to 13th June 2012. On that day none of the parties turned up and the matter was adjourned sine dei and the complainant was to go back to the Clerk and set a new date for court.
   
7. From 13th June 2012 to 29th November 2013 neither parties has 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.
   

Ratio Decidendum:

On 13th June 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.

From 13th June 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 not appeared 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:
The Complainants summons and complaint filed and dated 12 March 2012 is now struck out for want of prosecution.

Mrs J.Kilage-Bal
Magistrate