Tala v David [2013] PGDC 7; DC2048 (29 November 2013)

DC2048

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA
HELD IN KUNDIAWA

DC NO 50 of 2012

BETWEEN

DAVID TALA
(Complainant)

AND

MARIA DAVID
(Defendant)

Magistrate: Josephine Kilage, Kundiawa
29 November 2013

Civil Court: Complainant seeks damages of K5000 from the defendantdue to her actions of destroying his teaching certificates . The complainant is the husband of the defendant.

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:

David Tala: No appearance
Maria David: No appearance

Corum: Mrs Kilage-Bal

Held:

➢ The Complainant has not appeared to proceed with this case since 7th June 2012.
➢ This case is struck for want of prosecution.

Ruling

➢ Case struck for want of prosecution.

Facts:

1. Complainant is a teacher and is married to the Defendant. He is her husband.
   
2. Defendant is the wife of the Complainant.
   
3. The Defendant destroyed the papers of the Complainant which show his qualifications as a teacher.
   
4. The Complainant seeks damages to the sum of K5000 from the Defendant from destroying his papers. The Complainant filed his summons on 15th May 2012.
   
5. The matter was first mentioned in court on 7th June 2012. Neither party turned up. Matter was adjourned to 13th June 2012.
   
6. On 13th June 2012 the court sighted a letter from the complainant stating that his father had died and therefore he was unable to attend. The defendant was not is court and the matter was adjourned to16th July 2012.
   
7. On 26th June a letter was sent by the complainant requesting another adjournment as he was receiving training as a Presiding officer in the National Elections. He requested an adjournment until after the Elections.
   
8. On 16th July 2012 the case was adjourned to 17th July 2012. On 17th July 2012 neither party appeared. The complainant sent a hand written note saying due to road block both parties were unable to attend and that their case be adjourned generally and that they would arrange a convenient time to attend to their case.
   
9. The matter was adjourned sine dei on 17th July 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.
   
10. From 17th July 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 case 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