Wanis v Sikiot [1995] PGNC 28; N1350 (1 August 1995)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1350

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

WS 42 OF 1993(H)
PETER WANIS - Plaintiff
V
FRED SIKIOT - First Defendant
THE STATE - Second Defendant

Mount Hagen

Woods J
17 May 1995
26 June 1995
1 August 1995

ACTION FOR WRONGS - claims against the State - destruction of property by police - damages - independent evidence - need for - assessment of damages.

Counsel:

P Dowa for the Plaintiff

J Kumura for the Defendant

1 August 1995

WOODS J: This is a for damages sufs suffered by the Plaintiff when on the 9th February 1993 a number of police under the control of the First defendant entered his premises at Porgera where the plaintiff lived arried on business and loot looted and destroyed a substantial amount of property. It is claimet the police wice were acting in the course of their duty at the time and that the action was not warranted in law and therefore the State is responsible for thage done by the police.

The claim by the plaintiff oiff of the police raid on his property has not been refuted by the State and in default of action by the State judgement by default was entered against the State for damages to be assessed. This m has now come beforeefore me on the assessment of damages.

The plaintiff claims that he had established himself at Porgersetting up a mechanical workshop, and a trade store and a permanent house and had acquired ired a number of vehicles. He claimsof his vehicles wles was a Isuzu Dump truck which was used for a sub-contracting job with the PJV Company at Porgera for use on works in the Enga Province. Thentiff is claiming for tfor the loss and destruction ofon of the property and also for loss of profits following the destruction of the property which was used to generate income.

Whilst the State has failed to present any evidence disputing the general claim it is still necessary for the Plaintiff to produce appropriate evidence in Court to support the quantum of the claim. I will consider each aspect of the loss in turn.

THE VEHICLES

The Plaintiff claims for the loss of a number of vehicles. He is unable to ce any docy documentation to confirm that ownership and regtion of any of the vehiclesicles. Whhe states that he only hnly has the registration papers for one of the vehicles namely the Truck as all the rest were were destroyed in the fire, the registration paper produced is the insurance certificate for the Dump Truck for the period from the 13 May 1991 which in spite of what looks like alterations on that certificate must only be for one year till 1992. The evidence perhast supposupports the existence of the Dump Truck even though ths no currentrrent registration papers for the time of the incident. So whether it actually was still registered and operating at the time of the incident is notr. It would always be open to subpoena the Motor Vehi Vehicles Insurance (PNG) Trust for copies or a print-out of appropriate insurance details. Also if the twas under subr subcontract to the Company then the company would presumably have records of the status of such a vehicle as they would be concerned at the serviceability and proper registration of any such vehicle they were sub-contracting. The plaintiff ailed to brio bring any obvious evidence to support this claim. The existence of the Plant and Equipment Hire agreement does lend some support to the fact that the plaintiff may have had some vehicle. If there was sucehicln then the court would normally expect a Car dealers current valuation of such a vehicvehicle by reference to its age and condits the court cannot operate on mere estimations of the plaintiff. I am prepared to acco accept the fact that the plaintiff had some such vehicle which had been used for subcontracting work with the Company so I will allow a value for damages of K20,000 formp Truck. As to the other vehiclaimelaimed there is n is no evidence that they were roadworthy and registered, actually it appears they were not registered at all so they must have been unroadworthy and therefore of very limited value. So in so far as sohicles ales are recorded in photographs they must have been unregistered and therefore unserviceable so they would only be of a al value. I will consider an amof K5of K5,000 for them.

BUILDINGS

First he claims for a permanent house. There is no evidence apart from his assertion and a photograph of a blackened site as to the nature and standard of this building. Normally when a substanbuil building is destroyed by fire one usually gets an insurance assessor in to assess the damage. Here the plaintiff has brought no independent evidence as to the standard of this house. Thould be competent officifficials or government officers who could have supported or given some estimate of the value of the buildings. It is not enough to asse e an estimate, it must be supported. So going oing on the phot s of the site I can only give a conservative estimate of salues for the buildings of K12,000.

STOCK IN HAND AND CASH AND TRADE STORE BUSINEUSINESS AND GOLD BUYING BUSINESS

LOSS OF TRUCK HIRE BUSINESS

Whilst there is a new agreement shown for from January 1993 there is nothing to show how much work that agreement would involve and how much net return the plaintiff would get. Is court supposed to guessguess that it may be equivalent to the 1990 amount in the Income Tax Deduction certificate of a gross of K72,792 per year. Where is thfirmation of thof the income earning capacity for the 12 months up to the time of the loss. As e already noted there iere is no independent confirmation of the owning of a properly maint and registered Truck whichwhich would be suitable and available for sub-contract work.

PERSONAL PROPERTY

The plaintiff is also claiming for loss of clothes and household properties and tool in the destruction. Whilst I am prepared to accept that there was some loss of personal property the court cannot just find any amount based on what the plaintiff asserts, to cer more than just a basic amount there must be some other independent evidence from people ople or officials who knew the plaintiff’s house or knew his lifestyle to account for such values. I will consider a reasonable amount for personal property, clothing, tools and suchlike of K15,000.00.

To summarise:

/td>

Vehicles	K25,000.00
Buildings	K12.000.00
Tradestore goods & Cash	Nil
Loss of truck hire	Nil
Personal Property	K15,000.00
Total	K52,000.00

As I have said it is not enough to just assert ones business worth in such cases but one must be able to prove it by independent evidence. u want to participate in t in the modern economy and have the advantage of the modern laws which help you in a business you must comply with the modern laws andthe appropriate fees and taxes. By complying you then then have the appropriate proof to support any claim when your business goes wrong. In this case there hen no n no independent evidence to support the claim nor has there been compliance with the on motor vehicle registratstration and insurance and business licences and the completion of complete income tax returns for the additional businesses. Normally af fire or destruestruction of property there should be a report from Police or Government officials. In a number of such cases the court has been presented with reports from Magistrates or Coroners, or District Officers. Thrt cannot support claimslaims which do not comply with the law or which there is no appropriate evidence.

I find damages he Plaintiff in the sum of K52,000.00. I will allow for interes8 at 8 percent on that that from the date of the writ to to-day which assesses at K9,129.20.

I Order Judgement in the sum of K61,129.20.

Lawyer for the Plaintiff: P Dowa

L for the Defendants: Soliciolicitor-General