Kami v Paul [2017] PGDC 21; DC3024 (16 August 2017)

DC3024
PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE

SITTING IN ITS GRADE FIVE CIVIL COURT JURISDICTION]

GFCi: 30of 2017

BETWEEN

PATRICK KAMI

Complainant

AND

GEORGE PAUL

1^ST Defendant

AND

KORIS PAUL

2^nd Defendant

AND

ROBBINSON GEORGE

3^rd Defendant

AND

SEPU KESU

4^th Defendant

AND
-2-

NARE BAWE

5^th Defendant

AND

TOKU TOM

6^th Defendant

Goroka: R. APPA, PM

2017: July 28
August 16

CIVIL –

Cases Cited:
Nil

References:
Nil

Counsels:

Lawyer for the Complainant, Mr. Brian Tom, KamoPilisa& Co. Lawyers

Lawyer for the Defendant, Roslyn Kot, Avross& Co. Lawyers

10^th August, 2017

DECISION OF THE COURT

R. APPA, PM: This is an assault case. The complainant claims that on 25^th May 2013 the defendants went to Goroka Secondary School and assaulted him causing injuries. The defendants were charged by Police, appeared in court and pleaded guilty and were fined and were further ordered to pay compensation of K1, 500.00 in total for the injuries.

2. The complainant took the same case to the National Court for additional compensation because the amount ordered by the District Court was insufficient compared to the seriousness of the injuries as it later revealed after medical test and examination.
-3-

3. The National Court then referred the case to the District Court to deal with issues of defence and quantum.

4. Both counsels by consent tendered their respective affidavits and later filed written submissions.

5. The defence of rest judicata was raised and cited relevant cases dealing with the issue were discussed. The same parties and same issues were involved.

6. After considering both arguments and submissions I thought the defence of rest judicata was there, applicable but after looking through some of the cases cited there seemed to be a gap or room for people with good reasons to be allowed to go back to court, somewhat an exception to the rule.

7. In my view, the District Court by operation of law under Section 6 (4) Summary Offences Act did order for compensation but without having access to proper medical reports on complainants injuries sustained from the assault. At the same time, complainant did not or was not given an opportunity to prove nature of his injuries. It was later revealed that complainant was awarded disability at 20% permanent scars and 45% loss of hearing.

8. I have considered some awards made by the National Court in minor injury cases like:-

- DembaKalovsCornieAkaya&The State N3213, K5, 000.00 for bruises to face and body.
- George Chapokvs James Yali& Fred Muliupa N4374, K5, 000.00 for minor assault.
- George Kala vs Joseph Kupo&The State N3677, K5, 000.00 for injuries to face, right forearm and body.

9. In comparison, in Susanna UndapmainavsTalair Pty Ltd [1981] PNGLR 559, K10, 000.00 was awarded for pain and suffering, multiple injuries to head, leg, fractured tibia and fibula bones in air craft accident.

10. In my view, the complainant’s category of injuries would fall with the first three cases and awards made. I will make the same award of K5, 000.00 but less K1, 500.00 as already received.

11. Orders: The defendants are jointly ordered to pay the complainant K3, 500.00 for the injuries.
Costs of proceeding is awarded at 50 % on District Court scale as per the National Court
order.

Dated this 16^th August, 2017 at Goroka.

Counsels:

Lawyer for the Complainant, Mr Brian Tom, KamoPilisa& Co. Lawyers

Lawyer for the Defendant, Roslyn Kot, Avross& Co. Lawyers