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

John v Siune [2005] PGDC 35; DC194 (10 August 2005)

DC194

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]

CASE NO 2150 OF 2005

BETWEEN

Helen John
Complainant

V

Fabian Siune
Defendant

Port Moresby: Bidar
2005: 21st July & 10th August.

Damages – Claim for general damages – complainant being impregnant whilst in High School – Pretext of Marriage – Breach of promise to marry – Failure to pay Bride-price – Cause of action – Seduction or Breach of promise to marry – whether claim for payment of bride-price - whether maintenance and custody of children – Action based on custom – what custom – whether custom pleaded – Judgement for defendant. District Court Act Ch. No. 40) s.21(4)(e).

Cases Cited
There are no cases cited in the Judgement.

10th August 2005.

DECISION

BIDAR, PM: Complainant filed summons upon complaint against the defendant on the 10th June 2005 claiming damages in the following terms:-

"That you spoilt the complainant’s young life whilst she was in Grade 9 in 2001 by getting her pregnant on the pretext that you would marry her. Thereby causing her personal injury.

Further, by having two children from you and with no support from you, the complainant and her parents have struggled to raise these children although you have promised to pay her bride price.

And the complainant being aggrieved prays for the following orders:-

1. General damages.

2. Costs.

3. Such further Orders as the Court deems fit."

Complainant relied on her own affidavit sworn and filed on 25th May 2005; and affidavit her father John Nimimo sworn on 25th May and filed on 10th June 2005.

Complainant deposed that she is from Goroka in the Eastern Highlands Province and defendant is from Simbu Province. She was 18 years old when she was doing her Grade 9 at Kila Kila Secondary School when she started a relationship with the defendant who was then 21 years old.

She recalled the first time she slept with the defendant who insisted on having sex with her. She told defendant, it was almost her menstruation period but the defendant said he would use condom so she gave in only to realize that he did not use a condom.

She then became pregnant with her first child and delivered her child on 15th April 2002. Defendant and her relatives provided no support at all, although her relatives kept promising to pay bride price. Her parents struggled to raise the child.

Her relationship with defendant continued and in 2003 she became pregnant again. His relatives promised they would pay bride price before she delivered her second child but all these promises were untrue.

On 4th June 2004, she delivered her second child.

She deposed that her education spoilt or hampered by defendant, she thought defendant would marry her properly and look after her.

Based on whole of these, she seeks to be compensated for loss of young life, hardship she is undergoing as well as personal injuries.

John Nimimo in his affidavit deposed to similar facts and the hardship he and his wife suffered to bring up their grandchildren.

Looking at the complaint and affidavit evidence adduced, Court is puzzled as to what the cause of action is based on. Is it a claim for seduction and for breach of promise to marry? It is a claim for payment of bride price? Is it a claim for maintenance and custody of children? Or is it a claim for loss of virginity and personal injuries suffered and continues to do so? Is it an action based on custom?

If the action is for seduction or breach of promise to marry this Court lacks jurisdiction to deal with. Section 21(4) (e) of the District Court Act, specifically excludes the Courts jurisdiction. If the claim is payment of bride price or maintenance and custody of children, these are not properly pleaded. If the action is based on custom, it is not pleaded and custom must be proved as a matter of fact, under the Customs Recognitions Act as well as under the underlying Law Act.

I have considered the evidence thoroughly. I am unable to ascertain as to what cause of action is based on. The manner the complaint is worded, several possible actions are pleaded as I alluded to. Such pleadings or wording of complaint in my view offend against sections 28 and 29 of the District Courts Act.

In all the circumstances the Court is unable to ascertain what the complainant’s cause of action, if any, is based on. In these circumstances, I find defendant not liable and enter judgement for defendant.

I dismiss the proceedings. No costs awarded.

In Person: Complainant
In Person: Defendant