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

Beaga v Lemeki [2022] PGDC 11; DC8009 (25 January 2022)

DC8009

PAPUA NEW GUINEA.

[IN THE DISTRICT COURTS OF JUSTICE

SITTING IN ITS CIVIL JURISDICTION]

DCC NO: 121/2021

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

DOMINIC BEAGA.
Complainant.
.
AND.
MS. MADLYNE LEMEKI
Defendant.

Popondetta: Michael W. Apie’e

2022: August 10^th, 24^th, September 07^th, November 04^th, 25^th, December 14^th, 2022: January 04^th, 18^th and 25^th.

CIVIL PROCEEDINGS. Ex-Parte Application for Default orders to be entered regarding Claim of K6,800.00 being for work done for the Defendant.
EVIDENCE. Defendant relies on his filing and affidavit to seek Ex-Parte orders and the Defendants Affidavit Statement filed in Court on the 08^th of October 2021 also considered.

Cases Cited:

Monoluk v. Pala [2018] PNGC] 108 N7181 (23 March 2018)

References:

District Court Act.

Representation:
Complainant in Person
Defendant in Person

JUDGMENT ON TRIAL.

Background.
Complainants case.

1. The Complainant claims he was verbally engaged by the Defendant to work on her house at her Saga village in Kokoda Northern Province on the 12/03/21.
   
2. The Complainant then proceeded to plan and execute the Construction of the house and within Four Weeks the house was half complete but due to no payment being received for work being done the Complainant ceased working.
   
3. After seeking settlement of his Labour cost for some time the Complainant left off work completely.
   
4. The Complainant filed suit on the 02/08/21 seeking K6,800.00 as unpaid Labour cost for work done on the Defendants house so far.
   
5. Not only that, the Complainant also took as Security the following items, pending settlement of his outstanding labour costs
   
   1. 2 x wheel barrows. Unit Price Not Stated.
   2. 2 x ladders, Unit Price Not Stated.
   3. 1 x 3.5 KVA Generator Price Not Stated
   4. 1 x Drop saw, Price not Stated.
6. The Complainant is aggrieved by the Defendants non-payment of his Labour and so took away these items as security pending the payment of his Labour cost before releasing the same to her as he seems to imply.
   
7. The Defendants listed the following items as be taken away by the Complainant;
   
   1. 1 x Diesel generator.
   2. 1 x Electric Drill.
   3. 1 x Drop Saw.
   4. 2 x Ladders.
   5. 3 x wheel Barrows.
   6. 2 x 20meter power Extension cords.
   7. 2 x Power Adapters
      
8. The Defendant on the other had in her affidavit filed on the 08^th of October 2021 hinted that she does not want her tools back as they might have been spoilt or depreciated in value by now.
   

Observations.

9. The Complainant claims K6,800.00 for the work he had done so far, but he had not contracted with the Defendant in clear terms as to the expected sum expected for his work on her house so as to justify the sum he is claiming.
   
10. He has also taken upon himself to take as ‘Security’ the items listed above pending the settlement of the K6.800.00 in a manner described as Criminal by the Defendant.
    
11. By taking these Items as Security, the Complainant Has Literally ‘Taken the Law into his own hands by initiating process outside the Formal Legal avenues in seeking his own ‘Brand of Settlement Process’ against the Defendant.
    
12. The Action of taking away the Defendants tools and properties is without proper sanction by the Court via ‘Warrants of Executions’ in respect of a Judgement Debt ordered by the Court is not only Pre-emptive but illegal.
    
13. In other Words, the Complainant has broken the Law and now comes to the Court to have this court sanction his illegal Actions by ordering the Defendant to Pay K6.800.00 on top of it all.
    
14. The Common Law Maxim ‘He who comes to equity must come with clean hands’ has relevance to this case.
    
15. The Complainant having taken the Law into his own hands in taking possession of the Defendants properties such as the Diesel Generator and Electrical tools which are properties that have very high depreciative values and taking them away to his village and then coming to the court to order the Defendant to pay K6,800.00 is clearly a case of ‘One coming to Court with dirty hands.’
    
16. The Concept of Coming to Equity with Clean hands was considered in the case of Monoluk v. Pala N7181 9 wherein the former Senior Magistrate Patrick Monoluk was dismissed from the Magistracy by the Judicial Legal Services Commission (JLSC) and he sought a review of that dismissal claims against the JLSC and the Chief Magistrate.
    
17. His claims were somewhat mitigated to some degree by his own acts of disobedience and in-subordination to the instructions lawfully given him to transfer to Buka by the office of the Chief Magistrate, causing the Chief Magistrate to move through JLSC to have him dismissed. His Acts of Disobedience and Insubordination were deemed as ‘coming to equity without clean hands’. His Judicial Review Application for reinstatement to the Magistracy was accordingly rejected by the National Court.
    
18. In the current case, this Court will not entertain this action as the Complainant ‘does not come with clean hands’ having illegally taken away the Defendants properties he is more or less seeking to justify his illegal activities by seeking Court sanction and orders for his preemptive and illegal acts.
    
19. The Court will only give ear to the Complainant if he returns the Defendants properties fully and cleans up this episode to the satisfaction of the Defendant, if not he is on his own.
20. Accordingly, the Court Adjudges and will Order as follows;
    
    1. The Complainants Application for Ex-Parte Orders against the Defendant is Refused.
       
    2. The Whole of Complaint No: DC No: 121 of 2021 between the parties is also Dismissed in its entirety as being untenable in Law and in Logic.
       

Complainant in person.

No appearance for the Defendant.