PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Papua New Guinea District Court

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> Papua New Guinea District Court >> 2005 >> [2005] PGDC 99

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

Panao v Ambui [2005] PGDC 99; DC292 (2 August 2005)

DC292


PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]


CASE NO 1308 OF 2005


BETWEEN


PIS PANAO
Complainant


V


SALI AMBUI
Defendant


PORT MORESBY: BIDAR, PM
2005: 2nd August.


Damages – Breach of Lease Agreement – Lease Agreement – Propriety of – Two separate statutory declarations by each party – Whether declarations construed as lease agreement – No stamp duty paid – whether enforceable.


Cases Cited
There are no cases cited.


2nd August 2005.


RULING


BIDAR, PM: Complainant’s claim is for damages for alleged breach of lease agreement be entered into with the defendant on 22nd October 2004.


Defendant had a container tucker shop at 3 Mile, Boroko, near the flats at Section 24, Allotment 47. The tenants of the flat saw this operation as illegal and complained to National Housing Corporation the landlord.


The complainant had discussions with the defendant and they agreed that, complainant would rent the defendants tucker shop and operate it at an agreed rental.


On the 22nd October 2004, defendant signed a statutory declaration basically agreeing to let his tucker box to the complainant. Complainant also signed a separate statutory declaration agreeing to rent defendant’s tucker box. They had their declarations witnessed by clerk of Boroko District Court and stamped with the Boroko District Court seal. These declarations the complainant say was the lease agreement. The "agreement" was no where in the usual form of lease agreement. No stamp duty paid or ministerial approval under the Land Act. The tucker box in all was operated illegally. There is no evidence of any licence from the National Capital District Commission, as well as an authorization from the landlord to operate on that portion of land.


I find that, there is no existence of any legally binding agreement to sue on. I find in favour of the defendant. I dismiss the proceedings. No costs awarded.


In Person: Complainant
In Person: Defendant


PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/pg/cases/PGDC/2005/99.html