Vaike v Malefo [2003] SBMC 4; CMC-CC 071 of 2002 (14 April 2003)

SOLOMON ISLANDS
CENTRAL MAGISTRATES COURT
Civil Jurisdiction

Case No. 071 of 2002

BETWEEN

JOHN P. VAIKE AND M BONIE
Plaintiffs

-and-

MR & MRS MALEFO
1st Defendants

-and-

PARE (otherwise known as TEODY NICHOL)
2nd Defendant

JUDGMENT

R D Chetwynd Chief Magistrate – This was originally a claim by Mr Vaike (and Mr Bonie although he took no part in the proceedings) against Mr and Mrs Malefo. It became clear quite early on that there was another party involved, Mr Pare who is sometimes called Teody Nichol. On 11^th December I made an order which effectively joined Mr Pare as 2^nd Defendant.

The basic facts are that Mr & Mrs Malefo own a Toyota car. It is used as a taxi. Sometime in 2002 the car was involved in an accident with a Government owned vehicle. I was not given details in evidence about the accident, for the purposes of this case that detail is largely irrelevant.

The vehicle was taken to Mr Pare’s workshop in Solomon Plywood for repair. A quotation was given but I found the evidence very confusing and contradictory as to whether Mr & Mrs Malefo were given the quote before or after much of the work was done. In fact 2 quotes were handed over, one dated 4^th September 2002 numbered 6 and that was for a total of $18,853.00. That was a quote from Mr Teody Nichol, that is Mr Pare. The second is also dated 4^th September 2002 and totals $6,220.00 and is from John P Vaike. As I say, I cannot be sure when those quotes were “given” to Mr & Mrs Malefo but I believe the evidence shows they were both given after the work was done and that was towards the end of September. It also seems clear that the one from Mr Nichol (Pare) was given to the Malefos before the one from Mr Vaike.

The two quotes are interesting. The Pare quote is for mechanical repairs as well as bodywork repairs. A large sum is included for parts, $11,350.00 in fact. The bodywork repairs are quoted separately and show $3,003.00 for materials and $4,500.00 for labour. That in turn is broken down into Panel beating ($2,200.00) and spray painting ($2,300.00).

The Vaike quote shows the same figures for labour charges but a different figure for materials. None of the mechanical items are included and it is almost half the quote from Mr Pare in so far as materials are concerned. It totals $6,220.00.

From the evidence given in Court I find that there was undoubtedly an agreement between Mr & Mrs Malefo and Mr Pare for work to be done on Toyota car A9233. The work was both mechanical repairs and bodywork repairs. I find that there was a second agreement between Mr Pare and Mr Vaike. In that agreement Mr Pare sub contracted some of the bodywork repair to Mr Vaike. That agreement has nothing to do with the agreement between Mr & Mrs Malefo and Mr Pare. It is different and entirely separate. What this means is that there are two threads of legal liability. The one thread links Mr Pare and Mr and Mrs Malefo, the other links Mr Vaike and Mr Pare.

I find that Mr & Mrs Malefo contracted with Mr Pare for the repair of their vehicle. I do not accept the figure which was set out in Mr Pare’s quote (number 6 of 4^th September 2002). Mr Pare is entitled to recover the costs of the mechanical parts he supplied. The evidence is quite clear that although he never completed the work he did supply parts and they were either fitted or handed over with the vehicle when it was returned to Mr & Mrs Malefo. According to the quote, they total $11,350.00. Mr Malefo said in evidence that Mr Pare did not complete the work and that he had to get some one else to do it. No details were given though. I also note that the quote does not contain any element of a labour charge for the mechanical repairs.

Mr Pare is also entitled to recover the costs of the bodywork repairs. The correct figure for those is set out in the quote from Mr Vaike. There is $1,720.00 for materials and $4,500.00 for labour, making a total of $6,220.00.

The total owed to Mr Pare by Mr & Mrs Malefo is therefore $17,570.00. Mr & Mrs Malefo may have a counter claim or set off against Mr Pare (for the work they say was not done or parts which may or may not have been provided) but I have no details of those figures.

In turn, Mr Pare owes money to Mr Vaike. The evidence I heard indicates that Mr Pare paid for all the materials . That obviously means that Mr Vaike cannot claim the cost of them from Mr Pare. There is also a dispute that Mr Vaike did all the work. I find that the evidence shows he did some work. I find it hard to accept the evidence of Mr Pare and his two witnesses (the two security guards) that Mr Vaike did work on other vehicles but not the one belonging to Mr & Mrs Malefo. Mr Pare seemed almost to admit this in cross examination when he said that he would, ”give you [Mr Vaike] money but it’s not your money”. That seems to me to be an admission that he owed something to Mr Vaike and that can only be for the work Mr Vaike did on A9233. I would also point out that the witnesses for Mr Pare say that they saw Pare and Bonie work on the vehicle. Mr Pare says Mr Bonie was not around at the time.

The difficulty I have is deciding how much Mr Vaike should be paid for his labour. He seems to agree that he did not do all the work. I find that it is most probable that he shared the work with either Mr Pare or Mr Bonie, quite possibly both. However, he has produced no time sheets or other detail to show exactly how long he worked on the vehicle. The only equitable decision I can make is to share the cost of the labour between Mr Pare and Mr Vaike and Mr Bonie. The various stories I have heard seem to me to show that all three worked on the vehicle. I should therefore split the costs accordingly. I find that Mr Pare owes Mr Vaike the sum of $3,000.00 (or two thirds of the labour charge). Whether Mr Vaike must in turn pass some of that on to Mr Bonie does not concern me today as Mr Bonie did not appear.

The next issue I have to deal with is the contention by Mr Malefo that there was an agreement that payment for the work would only be made when the Solomon Island Government paid him. So far as that issue is concerned, I find that on the balance of probabilities there was some tacit agreement that the funds would be coming from Solomon Island Government. I said earlier that I heard no evidence about the accident which led up to this case, but I have no doubt that Mr & Mrs Malefo have a valid claim against the Government. However, I do not accept that Mr Pare agreed to hold off indefinitely. That would be commercial madness given the Government’s record on payments. I accept that he agreed to wait for a while for his money but that it was not an agreement to wait indefinitely. He now requires and is entitled to expect payment. In his evidence Mr Malefo confirmed this by saying he had made a payment of $1,500.00 to Mr Pare. By doing so he must have accepted that Mr Pare did not agree to wait indefinitely for payment.

The order I make is as follows;-

1. Judgment for the Second Defendant (Mr Pare) against the First Defendants (Mr & Mrs Malefo) in the sum of $16,070.00 payable forthwith;
   
2. Judgment for the Plaintiff (Mr Vaike) against the Second Defendant in the sum of $3,000.00 payable forthwith;
   
3. No order as to costs
   

Dated this 14^th April 2003

R D Chetwynd
Chief Magistrate