John Vulupindi v John Gideon (2006) N3925

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Cannings J
• Judgment Date: 22 June 2006
• Citation: (2006) N3925
• Docket Number: CIA NO 4 0F 2006
• Court: National Court
• Year: 2006
• Judgement Number: N3925

Full Title: CIA NO 4 0F 2006; John Vulupindi v John Gideon (2006) N3925

National Court: Cannings J

Judgment Delivered: 22 June 2006

N3925

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CIA NO 4 0F 2006

JOHN VULUPINDI

Appellant

V

JOHN GIDEON

Respondent

Kimbe: Cannings J

2006: 11 May, 22 June

APPEAL

Appeal – whether District Court made decision against the weight of evidence – oral contract to hire truck for election campaign purposes – whether the person entering into contract had authority to do so – principles of agency – actual and ostensible authority.

The respondent sued the appellant in the District Court for unpaid rental of a truck used by the appellant in his election campaign. The District Court found in the respondent’s favour. The appellant appealed on the ground that the District Court decision was against the weight of the evidence and he did not authorise anyone to hire the respondent’s truck.

Held:

(1) A person (an agent) who says (or ‘holds out’) that he or she is acting on behalf of another person (the principal) can enter into a binding agreement on behalf of the principal in two ways:

· if the agent has the actual authority to do so; or

· if the agent has ostensible (also known as apparent) authority to do so.

(2) Ostensible authority exists when the principal holds out (ie acts in a way that creates an impression) that the agent has authority to act on his or her behalf.

(3) Here, the appellant conferred ostensible authority on a person who held himself out as chairman of one of his election campaign committees, to enter into binding agreements on his behalf. He was bound by the contract the chairman entered into on his behalf.

(4) The District Court made no error of law and the appeal was dismissed.

Cases cited

The following cases are cited in the judgment:

AGC (Pacific) Ltd v Woo International Pty Ltd [1992] PNGLR 100

Egga Pua v Otto Benal Magiten (2005) N2892

Michael Yai Pupu trading as South Pacific Arts v Tourism Development Corporation (2002) N2258

Papua New Guinea Forest Authority v Concord Pacific Limited, Paiso Company Limited and The State (No 2) (2003) N2465

Paul Tarato v Sir Tei Abel [1987] PNGLR 403

Peter Kirin and KK Farmers v John Paroda (2004) N2599

APPEAL

This was an appeal from a decision of the District Court upholding a claim for breach of contract.

Counsel

G Linge, for the appellant

J Gideon, the respondent in person

22 June, 2006

1. CANNINGS J: This is an appeal against a decision of the District Court at Kimbe, constituted by Mr R Gavuri, in which his Worship upheld a claim for damages for breach of contract.

2. The appellant, John Vulupindi, was the successful candidate for the Talasea Open seat in the 2002 general election. The respondent, John Gideon, claimed that he hired his Isuzu truck to the appellant’s supporters to use for campaign purposes. The appellant won the election and the respondent approached him for payment, but he refused to pay, saying that he never authorised the hire of the truck. The respondent took the dispute to the District Court.

DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS

3. On 10 March 2005, the respondent filed a complaint in the District Court. There were two defendants: John Vava (the appellant’s executive officer) and the appellant.

4. The complaint was that during the 2002 general election John Vava and other supporters of the appellant hired the respondent’s Isuzu truck. The respondent paid all running costs of the truck.

5. The respondent claimed K3,000.00 for the running costs and K3,600.00 for hire of the truck (calculated at the rate of K200.00 per day for 18 days), a total of K6,600.00.

6. The complaint was tried before the District Court on 9 August 2005. No oral evidence was called. It was agreed that the court would make its decision based on affidavit evidence. The respondent (then the complainant) relied on three affidavits. The appellant (then the second defendant) relied on one affidavit. The evidence in the affidavits is summarised in the tables below.

TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF AFFIDAVITS

TENDERED BY THE RESPONDENT IN DISTRICT COURT

No Deponent Content

1 John Gideon States that during the 2002 general election the appellant’s
committees engaged his vehicle for the purposes of the election
campaign, transporting committees and supporters to various
locations – he was told that all debts would be settled after the
election.

2 Mathias Gideon He is the respondent’s brother – states that he was the driver of the
truck – attached to the appellant’s committees – fully committed to
the campaign for two months – assisted in driving around
supporters – running costs were met by the respondent.

3 Steven Meta States that he was chairman of the John Vulupindi Political
Resource Group – in early August 2001 he stayed overnight at the
respondent’s block at Tamba and they agreed that the respondent
would be one of the appellant’s area coordinators – he engaged the
respondent’s truck and told the respondent to keep a record of
running expenses – assured him that if the appellant wins the
election, he would be paid.

TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF AFFIDAVITTENDERED BY THE APPELLANT IN DISTRICT COURT

No Deponent Content

1 Clement Mare States that during the 2002 general election he was chairman of the
John Vulupindi Election Committee – he can recall use of the
respondent’s vehicle only on nomination day – he is not aware of
the 18 days claimed by the respondent.

7. The respondent represented himself. The appellant was represented by Mr G Linge.

8. His Worship Mr Gavuri handed down judgment on 12 September 2005. He found that the version of events given in the respondent’s three affidavits was correct, ie:

· Steven Meta was chairman of the John Vulupindi Political Resource Group and agreed with the respondent to hire his truck and use it for election campaign purposes;

· Steven Meta assured the respondent that if the appellant won the election he (the appellant) would settle the amount due;

· the appellant won the Talasea Open seat but failed to pay.

9. His Worship considered that the main issue was whether there was a binding contract, which had been breached. He resolved that issue in favour of the respondent:

The law of contract relating to a promissory condition is an essential term of this contract, the breach of which entitles the innocent party to repudiate the contract and or sue for damages. Here the statement made between John Gideon and Chairman for Political Party Group for John Vulupindi was agreed to and would be binding only if Mr John Vulupindi would win. But because John Vulupindi won the general election the result was a binding contract, the breach of which the complainant can claim damages from the defendant.

The doctrine of entire contracts is that if a person has expressly agreed to do an entire work for a specified sum of money, usually incomplete performance by him amounts to no performance. Thus in this case the complainant has employed his brother and his truck in this general election campaign and had completed the agreement.

The principle that in an entire contract, nothing can be claimed unless the claimant has performed all the conditions of the contract. In this case because this agreement has had fully affected, the complainant therefore entitles for damages. [sic]

10. His Worship thus considered that there was a contract formed between the appellant and the respondent and payment of money under the contract was conditional on the appellant winning the election. He won the election therefore he was bound to pay the amount agreed, which was K200.00 for truck hire per day plus running costs.

11. As to the quantum of damages, his Worship found that the respondent had not kept proper records of the running costs. So he awarded nothing under that head of damage. As to hire charges, his Worship was satisfied that only ten days hire could be proven so he awarded the sum of 10 days x K200.00 per day = K2,000.00. He awarded K2.00 for court costs, making the total judgment sum K2,002.00.

APPEAL TO NATIONAL COURT

12. The notice of appeal relies on two grounds:

1 The learned Magistrate erred in law and fact when there was no evidence to show that the respondent was entitled to the K2,000.00 ordered.

2 The order by the learned Magistrate was against the weight of the evidence.

MAJOR ISSUES

13. The grounds of appeal are rather vague but Mr Linge’s oral submissions crystallised the issues sufficiently and they can fairly be stated in this way:

· Was Steven Meta acting with the lawful authority of the appellant, with the capacity to enter into a contract on behalf of the appellant?

· Was there evidence to support the claim for a hire rate of K200.00 per day?

14. The appellant does not dispute the findings of fact made by the District Court – that Steven Meta made certain promises and entered into an agreement with the respondent. However, he takes issue with the District Court’s treatment of the legal issues.

APPELLANT’S SUBMISSIONS

15. Mr Linge argued that there was no evidence in the District Court...