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

Kaiko v Daugil [2005] PGDC 41; DC152 (24 November 2005)

DC152

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]

CASE NO 3256 OF 2005

BETWEEN

CHRISTINA KAIKO
Complainant

V

DOMINIC DAUGIL
Defendant

COUNSEL
For the Complainant: Present in person
For the Defendant: Ms. Pauline Kennah of LTI

PORT MORESBY: GAULI, APM
November 24th 2005

REASONS FOR DECISION

GAULI, APM: The Defendant/Applicant filed and a Notice of Motion on 23rd November 2005 seeking orders to set aside the court order dated 5th January 2005. That motion was dismissed on 24th November 2005.

Brief history of the case is as follows. On 03rd August 2004 the c complainant filed complaint and Default summons claiming that the defendant was indebted to the complainant in the sum on K2, 992.02 being for the bond fee and unpaid power bills.

On 06th August 2004 His Worship Mr. Re Vagi entered summary judgment against the Defendant in the sum of K2, 992.02.

On 25th August 2004 the defendant filed a Notice of Motion to set aside the court order of the 06th August 2004. That application was returnable on 03rd September 2004. Unfortunately that application was dismissed on 05th January 2005 for want of prosecution.

On 15th February 2005 the Complainant filed order Ex-parte for Attachment of Debt for garnishee proceedings. That application was adjourned generally on 17/02/05 for reasons that there was no proper application been filed.

On 21st February 2005 the Complainant filed a Notice of Motion seeking orders to amend the name of the defendant from M & E DAUGIL to DOMINIC DAUGIL. That Motion was struck out on 14th March 2005, by His Worship. Mr. N. Bingtau, for want of prosecution.

On 11th August 2005 the Complainant filed an application to commit the defendant to prison. That application was dismissed on 17th August 2005 for want of prosecution.

On 31st August 2005 the Complainant filed summons to Debtor for Oral examination returnable on 13th September 2005. While this summons is still pending, the Defendant on 23rd November 2005 filed a Notice of Motion to set aside the court order dated 05th January 2005. That motion was returnable on 24th January 2005. That motion was dismissed on the return date (24/01/05).

My reasons for dismissing the Defendant’s Notice of Motion filed on 23rd November 2005 are these:

1. The court order dated 05th January 2005 was an order that dismissed the defendant’s application filed on 25th August 2004 that sought to set aside the court order dated 06th August 2004. That application was dismissed for want of prosecution.
   
2. The Defendant in his application filed on 23rd November 2005 did not further seek orders to set aside the original ex parte order dated o6th August 2004.
   
3. The Defendant failed to give any reasonable explanation for the long delay in filing his application to set aside the court of 05th January 2005. This application was not made promptly.
   
4. The Defendant failed to give any reasonable explanation why he failed to prosecuting his application on the 05th January 2005 when he had applied to set aside the court order dated 06th August 2004.
   
5. The principles laid down in the case of GREEN –V- GREEN [1976] PNGLR 73 are relevant and applicable in this proceedings
   

Dated 04th January 2006

In Person: Complainant
Ms Pauline Kennah: Defendant

M. GAULI
Magistrate