Kainantu Urban Local Level Government v Night Owl Security Services Ltd [2017] PGDC 18; DC3043 (5 September 2017)

DC3043

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE

SITTING IN ITS CIVIL JURISDICTION]

DCCi 78 Of2017

BETWEEN:

KAINANTU URBAN LOCAL LEVEL GOVERNMENT

Complainant

AND

Night Owl Security Services Limited.

Defendant

Goroka: P KAUMBA, Magistrate

2017: August 23
September 5

CIVIL:

Cases Cited:
Nil

References:
Nil

Counsels:

Lawyer for the Complainant, Nolan Amoiha of Javati Lawyers

Lawyer for the Defendant, Ben Yagi of Nandi Lawyers

-2-
DECISION

P KAUMBA, Magistrate:This is a complaint filed by the complainant claiming K3,600.00from the Defendant for alleged unpaid trading licence fees and the matter came before me on the 13^th of July 2017 and it was adjourned four times mainly to give opportunity to the parties to argue the issue of the court’s jurisdiction to hear cases arising from Kainantu District, Eastern Highlands Province.

HEARING.
2. The complainant has filed its submission on jurisdiction on the 15^th of August 2017 and the defendants were given 5 days to file their reply and the matter was set for decision on jurisdiction today. The Defendants have not filed their submission in reply to the complainant’s submission mainly because the orders given on the aforesaid date were not taken out and served on the Defendants lawyer by the complainant’s lawyer as he undertookto do so in court. Anyway the court cannot wait for the defendant to make its submission. It will go ahead and make a decision.

3. FACTS.

1. The defendant is alleged to have failed to pay K3600.00 to the complainant being for licence fee for two businesses the defendant operates in Kainantu, township Eastern Highlands Province.
2. The Defendant is a local security company and operates its business mainly in Goroka

township.

ISSUE.
4. Whether this court has jurisdiction to hear a matter arising from Kainantu District?
Law.

Section 14 of the District Court Act.

14 District Courts,

The Judicial and Legal Services Commission may, by proclamation in the National Gazette-

(a) Establish a District Court for an area specified in the proclamation; and
(b) Abolish a District Court.

Section 21 of the District Court Act;

21. Civil Jurisdiction.

5. (1) Subject to this Act, in addition any jurisdiction conferred by any other law,a Court has jurisdiction in all actions at Law or in equity where the amount of the claim or the amount or value of the subject matter of the claim does not exceed-
-3-

(a) where the court consists of one or more Magistrates Grade V-K10,000.00,
(b) where the court consists of one or more Magistrate Grade IV-8000.00 ...

(5) Subject to this section, a Court has jurisdiction when-
(a) the defendant or one of two or more defendants as the case may be, is usually resident or
carries on business or
(b) the cause of action wholly or partly arose; or
(c) the defendant has given an engagement or written promise to pay a debt or sum at a
specified place,in the specified area for which the court is constituted.

6. Findings.

1. The court agrees with the complainant lawyer’s submission that the Defendant is a local company and carries on business in Goroka.
2. The cause of action wholly arose from Kainantu District but due to the finding in paragraph 1 above the court has jurisdiction to hear this case pursuant to section 21 sub-section (5)of the District Court Act and the complainant can make its application for default judgement.
3. The Defendant has filed its notice of intention to defend.

7. The courts formal orders are:

1. The Goroka District Court has jurisdiction to hear this case.
2. The complainant can make his application for default judgement.
3. Cost’s be in the cause.
   

Counsels:

Lawyer for the Complainant, Mr. N. Amoiha of Javati Lawyers.

Lawyer for the Defendant, Ben Yagi of Nandi Lawyers.