Wai v Timothy [2017] PGDC 29; DC3032 (13 January 2017)

DC3032
PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE

SITTING IN ITS CIVIL COURT JURISDICTION]

DCCi: 239 of 2016

BETWEEN

ISMAEL WAI

Complainant

AND

CAN TIMOTHY & DORCAS TIMOTHY

Defendant

Goroka: R. APPA, PM

2016: - November 29
- December 22

2017: -January 13

CIVIL –

Cases Cited:
Nil

References:
Nil

Counsels:
Nil

13^thJanuary, 2017

-2-
DECISION OF THE COURT

R. APPA, PM: This is a defamation case. The complainant alleged that on 22^nd February 2016 at Faniufa the defendants had used some defamatory words against the complainant and his father in this way.
By the first defendant:-

“Papa blongyuemnogatnem long ples.Emarere man.Emino save wokimwanplasamting long haus man.Mibaisindaun longmoninaranimbisnis. Yu bailukim.Papa blongyuwokim garden naraun long pipia wok stap.”
The second defendant:-

“Yu, papa blongemnaol man bailukimyutupla.Lukimemnayulukimyu, emwinimyu, yu no olsem. Yu rabispipia, yunogatmoni. Yu bailukim mi ya. Yu no fit long kamaplida.”

2. The complainant alleged those words used during an argument over politics. The complainant stood for President Election but was eliminated and a family member of defendants won.

3. The argument led to an assault on the complainant by the first defendant which is a subject of a separate case D/C No. 80/16.

4. In defence, defendants said complainant first provoked them by saying:-

“Yu nabratablongyu president pikininiblonglonglong man nayusanguma.Yu mekimsangumablongyunabratablongyuwinim Election.”

4. It was also alleged that complainant said to the first defendant:-

“Yu na mama blongyu go antapleg makbaistap. Kamdaunbainogat, saposyuplakamdaunlekblongyutupelabaiyelonabai mi sutimyutupla long gun nakatimnek.”

5. All these exchange of words came about as the result of argument and all those exchange of words were capable of causing damage to their reputations and standings in their community. Itscommon experience that things like this happened during the heat of arguments without realizing the consequences. Sometimes they don’t have any meaning at all.

6. In any case, since complainant first brought the matter to court, we attend to it.

7. The complainant provided evidence supported by one witness and corroborated.

8. As I said earlier in the judgment, the words used by the defendants were capable of causing anger, humiliation, frustration and distress, the complainant was entitled to compensation.

9. Since those words used was heard by one person and also in exchange of words during arguments, the awards cannot be high. An award of K800.00 was considered reasonable.

10. Orders: The defendants are jointly ordered to pay the complainant K800.00 by way of

compensation payable within one month from today 13^th January 2017.

Costs followed event.
-3-

Dated this 13^th January 2017 at Goroka.

Counsels:
Nil