Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Papua New Guinea District Court

Valu v Ugava [2005] PGDC 115; DC402 (17 October 2005)

DC402

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]

CASE NO 2333 OF 2005

BETWEEN

Api Valu & Jack Poko
Complainant

V

Anthony Ugava
Head Master Kilakila Primary School
First Defendant

Patrick Imo
Chairman Board of Management
Kilakila Primary School
Second Defendant

Board of Management
Kilakila Primary School
Third Defendant

Port Moresby: Bidar, Pm
2005: 17th October

Civil Claim – Claim for work done on quantum merit – Liability not disputed
Dispute amount claimed – Assessment of – Judgment for Complainants.

Counsel
Api Valu for Complainant
Patrick Imo for DEFENDANT

DECISION

17th October 2005

BIDAR, PM: Complaints bring suit against the defendants claiming non payment of work and service provided to KilaKila Primary School. In February 2005 agreement was reached between the Headmaster Mr. Ugava Tau and Complainants that urgent maintenance of school toilets was required.

Following the agreement complainants and their employees started work on the school toilets. After completing the maintenance of the school toilets an invoice of K9 350.00 was issued to the school. On 23rd March 2005, a Bank of South Pacific Cheque of K3000.00 was paid to the Complainants. Subsequently on the 1st April 2005, another cheque of K500.00 was made out to the Complainants and Defendants requested return of earlier cheque of K3000.00, which I assume was returned. No further payment was made after that. Complainants had been making demands for payments of the balance until these proceedings were filed on 28th 2005.

Defendants do not deny contracting with Complainants to do maintenance of the school toilets. Defendants say that the work done was incomplete and unprofessional, and does not worth the money they are asking for. However, on the invoice submitted to the Headmaster it is complaints evidence that, he inspected the work done, and approved the invoice for payment and stamped it on 9th March 2005.

Defendants cannot say that the work was incomplete or it was a bad workmanship. In all the circumstances, Complainants are entitled to receive payments for work and services provided to the Defendants. I find Defendants liable.

On the issue of the amount of money, the invoice was made out for K9350.00. Defendants made out a cheque for K500.00, which they paid the complainants and took back earlier cheque payment of K3000.00. This would leave a balance of K8850.00

Court has viewed photographs of the toilets which maintenance work was done. Court is doubtful as to when these photographs were taken, whether at the time of completion of work or sometimes later. It is doubtful as to when these photographs were taken.

Despite the impression the photographs depict, the fact is the Complainants did some maintenance of the toilets, which is not denied by defendants. In these circumstances, complainant is entitled to claim on quantum merit, ie, reasonable amount to be paid to them for work done. In all the circumstances, I assess K8850.00 as the balance of invoice outstanding which I award to the Complainants. I allow interest at 8% from date of summons 28th June 2005 to Judgment, a period of about four months. This calculates to K236.00.

The court therefore orders Judgment for complainant in the sum of K9086.00. Complainants shall have their costs paid by the defendants. Such costs are to be taxed if not agreed to.

Api Valu: Complainant
Patrick Imo: Defendant