Anton Angra and Oimbo Security Services Pty Ltd v Tony Ina [1996] PNGLR 303

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Doherty J
• Judgment Date: 13 June 1996
• Citation: [1996] PNGLR 303
• Court: National Court
• Year: 1996
• Judgement Number: N1440

National Court: Doherty J

Judgment Delivered: 13 June 1996

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

ANTON ANGRA & OIMBO SECURITY SERVICES PTY LTD

V

TONY INA

Waigani

Doherty J

13 June 1996

INFERIOR COURTS — District Court procedures where facts are not admitted — Section 141 District Courts Act Ch 40 — District Court — Duty of to hear witness — Obligation to give reasons for decision — Court Prolonged adjournments of a total of 25 times unjust.

Facts

The case was adjourned for mention on 25 occasions; the parties denied each others versions of events and hence liability; upon the defendant's failure to attend hearing of the matter on the last occasion, judgment was entered for the complainant. No reasons for the decision were given; neither was the amount awarded, except for the statement: "judgement in full plus costs plus ... per cent interest".

Even after the notice of appeal was lodged, the presiding magistrate did not give any reasons for the decision.

Held

1. The obligation to hear witnesses is a mandatory obligation imposed by statute.

2. Where facts are not challenged affidavit evidence can be tendered by consent.

3. The obligation to give reasons once an appeal is lodged is a mandatory one imposed by statute.

4. Prolonged adjournment without reason is unjust.

5. Appeal allowed and case remitted to District Court for re-hearing.

Cases Cited

Bougainville Copper and Masai Levif v Mathew Liu [1978] PNGLR 221.

Davinga v State [1995] PNGLR 263.

Lee v Lee [1973] PNGLR 89.

Counsel

Mr Ketan, for the appellant.

P Mawa, for the respondent.

13 June 1996

DOHERTY J: This is an appeal from a decision of the Port Moresby Grade 'V' District Court given on the 2nd December 1994. The appeal is against the procedures that were followed in the lower court prior to and in reaching that decision.

The transcript shows that a complaint and summons were filed in the District Court on the 21st May 1993 claiming both general and specific damages for an alleged assault by the first appellant, a security guard, and against his employer. It was alleged that an unprovoked attack was made on the complainant, (respondent in this court) and injuries were inflicted. The return date was the 24th June 1993 and subsequently a defence was filed on the 12th August 1993 alleging that the complainant had acted aggressively and illegally, had tripped on the road and that he was, in effect, the author of his own misfortune.

According to a brief look at the depositions it would appear that this matter was adjourned approximately 25 times in the District Court for mention. A few only of those were by request of counsel,...