Hovea v Saiyama [2021] PGDC 195; DC7052 (15 July 2021)

DC7052

PAPUA NEW GUINEA.

[IN THE DISTRICT COURTS OF JUSTICE

SITTING IN ITS CIVIL JURISDICTION]
DCC NO: 59/2018

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

ROBERT HOVEA
Complainant/Respondent.

AND.

1. ROBERT SAIYAMA.

Defendant.

2. MANAGER OF POPONDETTA OIL PALM GROWERS ASSOCIATION.
3. ARNOLD KOKO.

Defendant/Applicants.

Popondetta: Michael W. Apie’e

2021: July 15^th.

CIVIL PROCEEDINGS. Notice of motion seeking summary omission of 2^nd and 3^rd Defendants from the substantive matter. Issues of Privity of contract raised

Cases Cited:
-PNGBC v. Barra Amevo and 3ors N1726.
- Christian Life Center v. associated Mission Church of Papua New Guinea (2007) N22

References:
District Court Act.

Representation:
Complainant /Respondent in person.
First Defendant in Person.
Mr. Tony Sua for the 2^nd and 3^rd Defendants.

CAUSE OF ACTION: NOTICE OF MOTION SEEKING TO EXCLUDE 2^nd and 3^rd DEFENDANTS FROM THE PENDING ACTIONS DCC No: 59/2018.

RULING ON NOTICE OF MOTION.

Background.

1. The Complainant filed this action on the 23^rd of March 2018 against the Defendants seeking a total of K9,000.00 for work allegedly done on vehicle Five Door Land-cruiser Registration BDO 736.
   
2. It seems that the Complainant was engaged by the First Defendant, a Policeman, to work on the vehicle owned by the Second Defendant after it sustained some damage when he was using it clearly without the permission of the owner(s), the Second and Third Defendants.
   
3. At the time of the damages being caused to the vehicle, the said vehicle BDO 736 was supposedly in the Lawful custody of the Popondetta Police and so whatever happened to the use or driving of the said vehicle during this custody period, had nothing to do with the Second and third Defendants.
   
4. After the First Defendant left the vehicle with the Complainant, the Complainant did work on it and then sought settlement of the account but was not paid by the person that engaged him, namely the First Defendant.
   
5. The Second and third Defendants sought recovery of their vehicle from the Complainant but he refused to release said vehicle unless his outstanding fees were met.
   
6. The vehicle was then forcible removed from him and returned to the owners.
   
7. The Complainant then filed suit on 23/03/18 to recover the fee’s he incurred in working on the vehicle.
   

NOTICE OF MOTION.

8. The Second and third Defendants through Counsel Mr. Tony Sua of Sua and Son Lawyers law firm filed a Notice of motion in under the Law Firm of M. Saka Lawyers on the 18/06/18 seeking to remove the Second and third Defendant from this proceeding on the basis of PRIVITY of Contract, in that when the vehicle was delivered to the Complainant to work on by the First Defendant, the Second and third Defendants were never Parties to that arrangement let alone agreed or commit to it.
   
9. The Doctrine of Privity of Contract is a common Law principle that forms part of Papua New Guinea underlying Law and is relevant in Papua New Guinea in matters of Contract Law and relationships between people.
   
10. In the case of PNGBC v. Barra Amevo and Bari Investments t/a Kainantu Pharmacy, Lennie Aparima and Orito Aparima N1726, correctly cited by Counsel, Sevua J (Late) as he then was stated,
    

‘The Doctrine of Privity of Contract is that, as a general rule, a contract cannot confer rights or imposed obligations arising under it on any person except the parties to it. The scope of the doctrine means only that a person cannot acquire rights, or be subjected to liabilities arising under a contract to which he is not a party.’

11. In the Later case of Christian Life Center v. associated Mission Church of Papua New Guinea (2007) N22 Lenalia J (Late) as he then was also echoed this sentiment and said
    

‘In the Law of Contract, a contract creates rights and obligations between the parties to it...’

12. This Principle simply stated means a ‘Contract’ only applies to those entered into it, and no-one else.
    

APPLICATION TO CASE AT HAND.

13. The background of this case are as follows,
    
    1. Robert Saiyama was driving a vehicle that was supposed to be impounded by Police at the Police Station and was more or less ‘on his own frolic’ when the vehicle was damaged.
       
    2. It is not alleged that he had the permission of the owners to be driving an impounded vehicle, let alone permission from the PPC or PSC nor was he doing anything for the Benefit of the owners when the vehicle was damaged.
       
    3. An impounded vehicle should have remained impounded at the Police Station and not taken for joy rides by anyone especially Policemen, no matter how high they are ranked or how much self-esteem they hold themselves in, Super cops or otherwise.
       
    4. He (Saiyama) then delivered the vehicle to the Complainant to work on it at his own volition as the reasonable thing to do after causing damage to a vehicle especially some other person’s vehicle.
    5. Whatever arrangement or agreement Saiyama entered into with the Complainant was basically between themselves and no one else.
       
    6. Nobody else can be Lawfully dragged into that Arrangement and forced to share the responsibility or obligations that arise such as the Payment for the services rendered on the vehicle that Saiyama requested, not even the vehicle owners in the circumstance of this case.
       
14. In the final Analysis, the Court finds and Rules as follows that;
    
    1. On the basis of the Evidence that can be gleaned from the Substantive matter and also the Affidavit and Submission in support of the Notice of Motion by the Second and third Defendants,
       
       1. The First Defendant was never permitted to drive the impounded vehicle by the Second and third Defendants.
          
       2. The Second and third Defendants were never involved in, let alone being parties to the Service Arrangement for the vehicle BDO 736, even though they owned the said vehicle.
          
       100. The fact Remains that the said vehicle should have being impounded at the Police Station and not being driven around by anyone, policeman or not.
            
       4. Whatever arrangement for service or repair of the vehicle was entered into by Robert Saiyama and Robert Hovea is between themselves and does not include the Second and third Defendants in the assessment of this Court.
          
       5. The Second and Third Defendants, though they own this vehicle BDO 736 have no lawful obligations to the service arrangement between Saiyama and Hovea, and ought to be removed from further participation in this case.
          
15. Accordingly, the Court will order as follows;
    
    1. The Application by the Second and third Defendants is upheld, and they are hereby removed as Defendants from this Proceeding DC No: 59 of 2018.
       
    2. The substantive matter of DC No: 59 of 2018 will continue between Robert Hovea and Defendant Robert Saiyama.
       
    3. Costs of this Application to the Second and Third Defendants.
       
    4. The matter between Robert Hovea vs. Robert Saiyama returns to court for mention on Thursday the 22/07/21.
       

Complainant/Respondent for himself.
First Defendant no present.
Sua and Sons Lawyers for the Second and third Defendants.