Powi v Mitina [2021] PGDC 225; DC7086 (9 December 2021)

DC7086

PAPUA NEW GUINEA.

[IN THE DISTRICT COURTS OF JUSTICE

SITTING IN ITS CIVIL JURISDICTION]

DCC NO: 116/2021

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

DAVID POWI.
Complainant/Respondent.
.
AND.
GENESEN MITINA
Defendant/Applicants.

Popondetta: Michael W. Apie’e

2021: December 09^th.

CIVIL PROCEEDINGS. Action seeking Refund of monies given to defendant.

Cases Cited:

References:

District Court Act.

Representation:
Complainant in Person
Defendant in Person

JUDGMENT ON TRIAL.

Background.
Complainants case.

1. The Complainant David Powi files action against the Defendant in his action of 01/09/21 and seeks the following orders;
   
   1. Orders for the Defendant to refund K3,700.00 to the Complainant.
      
   2. Interest and costs.
      
2. The Complainant is aggrieved by the Defendant in that he claims that since the 15/12/20 up until 09/06/21, the Defendant had been obtaining monies from the Complainant for her personnel use.
   
3. He claims that the Defendant on the 17^th of December 2020 at the Oro Provincial Education Office said to the Complainant ‘Please sun ia hot na mi laikim sampela drink ia’ (referring to Liquor) when the Complainant responded ‘Okay sapos yu laik!’ she replied saying ‘Okay, yumi free man meri ia!’
   
4. In other Words, the Defendant asked for the Complainant to provide Drinks or money for Drinks, and she accepted the drinks because she was free as her husband was deceased and the Complainant was also free as his wife was deceased.
   
5. Whether the Defendant was offering to hook up romantically with the Complainant is not clear, but the court finds that some form of understanding was reached between the parties before the money started flowing from the complainant to the Defendant thereafter!
   
6. When the Complainant became reluctant to lend or assist her with money on the 09/06/21 as he claims she was going around drinking with young boys, he claims she became insulting and said to him in ‘Tok-Pisin’ “ Mi gat feelings lon kaikai moni bilon yu tasol, noken feelim olsem umi twopela bai maritim wantain: Na tu, yu no size bilon mi nay u big pela papa tumas ia!”
   
7. Realizing this, the Complainant told the Defendant to refund his total of K3700.00 but the Defendant had failed to refund the same.
   
8. The Complainant therefore brought this action against the Defendant.
   
9. His Claim is in turn supported by an Affidavit she deposed on the 22/10/21 and his various other filings including his originating documents filed on the 01/09/21.
   

Defense case.

10. The Defendant denied the claim stating more or less that the Complainant was giving her all these monies with ulterior motive to engage in sexual relations with her but when she found out she cut him off and that was the end.
    
11. She insisted that she stopped communicating with him in June 2021 and so does not know who was communicating with him after June 2021.
    
12. Nevertheless, the Defendant does not deny obtaining the various amounts of money alleged from the Complainant.
    

Observations.

13. The Complainant and Defendant are neighbors living near each other at Mendi-Tari Compound.
    
14. The Complainant was willingly giving the money to the Defendant because of something he obviously wanted and the Defendant must have known this and was leading him on to cause him to willingly give her and send her all the monies he did.
    
15. The Defendant was willingly receiving and putting all these monies to her own use without a thought as to the implications and even as to how she would repay if he asked for it back, given that she was not romantically interested or attracted to the Complainant.
    
16. If the Defendant was romantically involved with the Complainant but he later asked for his money back than that would be different thing, however in this case she obtained and use the Complainants money without hesitation and thought on how or if she would repay, let alone what she could give in return for all the money she got.
    
17. To blankly state that ‘he gave the monies at his own volition and so it’s not my problem’ is a naïve statement to utter, let alone think it as they say ‘There is no such thing as a free lunch!’.
    
18. The Complainant claims a total of K3,700.00 as the total sum of monies given/sent to the Complainant and on the 21/10/21 in his sworn evidence he Accounted for the different amounts sent over the course of more than Six months from 15/12/20 up until 09/06/21, and the total comes up to K2350.00.
    
19. He was not challenged on these amounts by the Defendant
    
20. The District Court is a Court that relies on evidence properly elicited in Court and so far this amount of K2350.00 is proven in Court as per the Complainant sworn Evidence.
    
21. On the same token, this court thinks the Complainant was naïve and expected too much from the Defendant in thinking she would get involved with him given that she is still living with her late husband’s relatives and also that she obviously thinks he is too old for her despite all the money he was giving her.
    
22. That being so, the amount in excess of K2350.00 he cannot account for is to be disregarded by this Court.
    
23. Accordingly, the Court Adjudges and will Order as follows;
    
    1. The Defendants is found liable to the Complainant in the proven sum of K2350.00.
       
    2. The Defendant is allowed 60 days within which to fully repay the K2350.00.
       
    3. Statutory interest of 8% k50.00
       
    4. Cost of K3.00
       
    5. Total of K2403.00 to be settled by no later than 07/02/22.
       
    6. In Default, Enforcement Proceedings to ensue.

Complainant in person.

Defendant in person.