Marawo v Lakabe [2019] PGDC 4; DC3085 (19 March 2019)

DC3085

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

IN THE DISTRICT COURT SITTING

IN ITS CRIMINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

DC 123/2018

BETWEEN

ANTONIA MARAWO
-Complainant-

AND

JOE LAKABE
-Defendant-

Kimbe: B. Tanewan

2019: 19^th March

Enforcement of Contract of Sale of Land– Elements of Contract – Complainant not a Party but merely raising traditional obligation insufficient - Issue of Locus standi – breach of contract unenforceable by non- party

Case cited:
No cases cited

Counsel

Complainant - In Person
Defendant -In Person

DECISION

Tanewan, PM. This is a complaint filed claiming breach of contract of sale of land and for purported outstanding amount of purchase price to be paid to complainant by the defendant.
The Brief Facts
The complainant/ Applicant instituted these proceedings by way of information, Summons to a person upon information on 14^th December 2018. Together with the above an Application for Interim Protection Orders and Interim Orders signed by Court on 14^th December 2018. In essence this matter was commenced as an Application for Interim Protection Order.

The Defendant then filed affidavits in reply to the Interim Protection Orders basically disputing the matter and the cause stands of the complainant as they argued they had purchased the block known as Section eight 8, portion 0320, Kapore sub- division.

The defendants in their evidence adduced that the evidence that the agreement for the Sales and Purchases of that particular block in dispute was entered with another person by the name of Judah Merau and not the complainant.

The matter was set for hearing on 09^th of February 2019. During trail the complainant called two (2) witnesses whilst the defendants called also two (2) witnesses.

The Complainant’s Evidence.

The first witness is the Complainant AntioniaMarawo. Her evidence is that she is the complainant and that the particular block belongs to one MarawoKunangil from Simbu. MarawoKunanagil has three (3) sons. The witness said that she was married to the first born of the three (3) sons of the block holder MarawoKunangil. She stated that she had three(3) kids and the husband died so she remarried as life was hard looking after the kids alone.

The witness told the court that when she heard of the sale of the block she left for Kundiawa and at Kundiawa she approached the third son of MarawoKunangil, Judah Nerau who sold the block to Joe Lakabe .When she approached him he told her that the block was sold to Joe Lakabe for K100, 000 but Joe Lakabe gave only K80, 000, to him and there is K20, 000 outstanding to be paid. Her evidence was that Judah Merau told her to travel to Kimbe and follow up on the outstanding amount of K20, 000, Owe by Joe Lakabe. When she followed up with Joe Lakabethen promised to pay but did not so she instituted these proceedings to get Joe Lakabe to pay.

The second witness Michael Gabe gave sworn evidence and said that he comesfrom Gunangi in SSY District of Simbu Province. He told the court he knows the complainant as being the wife of the Anton Marawo and they had three (3) children.
He said that Anton then passed away in 1994 and Antonia did not remarry until 1996. His evidence further states that he came and live in Kimbe together with Marawo family and known them very well. He said the father’s people did not look after the kids well so the mama card to the block was given to Stephanie the complainant’s daughter. He further told the court that Judah was sick so he sold the block and went to Simbu without informing Antonia and her kids.

The Defendant’s Evidence
Joe Lakabe gave sworn evidence before the court. The crux of his evidence was that he made an agreement with Judah to buy the block from him. Their agreement was that the purchase price was K100, 000, and the title will be transferred to him. Mr. Lakabe gave evidence that he paid K80, 000 to Judah but has not received the title as yet. He further stated that during negotiations he never come across the complainant. The initial price of the block was K150, 000 but when Judah got sick and needed money, he agreed to sell it at K100.000. Mr. Lakabe told the court that the block was bushy and the house was falling apart when he bought it for K80.000. Even so that witness told the court that he spent well over K30.000, to try and sort out the documents and consultants to get the title. He gave evidence that when he entered into agreement with Judah Merau, Judah did not tell him about any survival family members.

The evidence of John Taingo is that the complainant was married to the block owner’s son. She is a third party to the agreement and the block. He further stated that OPIC and other relevant authorities know that Joe Lakabe is the owner of the said block in dispute.

Issues
The relevant issues in this particular case are the following;

(i) Whether there is breach of contract of sale of land.?

(ii) If there is a breach, is the complainant entitled to damages?

Having said so, I will proceed to address the first issue of whether or not there is a breach of contract of sale.On the outset and for purposes of clarity, I set out the elements of a contract as there must be an offer made,there must also be Consideration, Acceptance and of course there must be two parties to that contract.

In law, any contract must have the above elements otherwise it will fall short of being a contract or agreement thus unenforceable.

In this particular case, contract of sale that was produced as evidence in court is an agreement, entitled as “Contract for Sale of Land” and the parties to that contract are Judah Marawo as the seller sometimes referred to as Vendor and Joe Lakabe as the Purchaser or Buyer. That contract was signed by parties on 22^nd March 2013. Consideration the asking price was that Judah Marawo selling the block known as portion 320 Kapore and the price was K150.000. Joe Lakabe was interested so he made an offer of K100.000 to Judah Nerau, however during negotiations Judah Marawo was sick and needed money urgently. Joe Lakabe was willing to pay K80, 000. Which he did and Judah Nerau left the block and went to Kundiawa.

As per the contract of sale, JoeLakabe still owes Judah Marawo K20, 000, thus then brings us to the next issue, which is does the complainant Antonia Marawo have the standing or legal capacity to sue Joe Lakabe for the outstanding K20,000.00 and for breach of contract.

At this juncture, I must first ask myself, did Antonia sign the contract of Sales of land; was she a party to the agreement?

It is evident that she was never a party to the agreement nor she’s the title holder or occupant of the said block in dispute.

Therefore, in law it is said that she does not have locus standi or standing to sue and be sued in this case. She also cannot enforce that agreement as she was not a party.

In my view, she is trying to fight of the rights of her children to at least benefit from the proceeds of the sale of the block as a customary obligation of the Marawo family. Thus in this case she and her children should be and rightfully suing Judah Nerau and his brothers for not sharing the proceeds of the sale and this is a family obligation which should be sorted out amongst them.

Further, it is clear that Joe Lakabe paid three quarters of the price of the block but the title has not been transferred to him as per the terms of the agreement.

Being so, the Court finds;

The complainant Antonia Marawo does not have the locus of standi to sue for breach of agreement and the matter is misconceived, frivolous and vexatious and must be dismissed.

On the above finds the Court formal orders are;

1. Matter is dismissed in its entity for lack of standing and for being misconceived frivolous and vexatious.
   
2. Complainant shall pay costs of proceedings to be taxed if not agreed.
   

Orders accordingly