Peter Wanis v Fred Sikiot and The Independent State of Papua New Guinea (1995) N1350

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Woods J
• Judgment Date: 01 August 1995
• Court: National Court
• Citation: (1995) N1350
• Year: 1995
• Judgement Number: N1350

Full Title: Peter Wanis v Fred Sikiot and The Independent State of Papua New Guinea (1995) N1350

National Court: Woods J

Judgment Delivered: 1 August 1995

N1350

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

WS 42 OF 1993 (H)

PETER WANIS — Plaintiff

V

FRED SIKIOT — First Defendant

THE STATE — Second Defendant

Mount Hagen

Woods J

17 May 1995

26 June 1995

1 August 1995

ACTION FOR WRONGS — claims against the State — destruction of property by police — damages — independent evidence — need for — assessment of damages.

Counsel:

P Dowa for the Plaintiff

J Kumura for the Defendant

1 August 1995

WOODS J: This is a claim for damages suffered by the Plaintiff when on the 9th February 1993 a number of police under the control of the First defendant entered his premises at Porgera where the plaintiff lived and carried on business and looted and destroyed a substantial amount of property. It is claimed that the police were acting in the course of their duty at the time and that the action was not warranted in law and therefore the State is responsible for the damage done by the police.

The claim by the plaintiff of the police raid on his property has not been refuted by the State and in default of action by the State judgement by default was entered against the State for damages to be assessed. This matter has now come before me on the assessment of damages.

The plaintiff claims that he had established himself at Porgera by setting up a mechanical workshop, and a trade store and a permanent house and had acquired a number of vehicles. He claims one of his vehicles was a Isuzu Dump truck which was used for a sub-contracting job with the PJV Company at Porgera for use on road works in the Enga Province. The plaintiff is claiming for the loss and destruction of the property and also for loss of profits following the destruction of the property which was used to generate income.

Whilst the State has failed to present any evidence disputing the general claim it is still necessary for the Plaintiff to produce appropriate evidence in Court to support the quantum of the claim. I will consider each aspect of the loss in turn.

THE VEHICLES

The Plaintiff claims for the loss of a number of vehicles. He is unable to produce any documentation to confirm that ownership and registration of any of the vehicles. Whilst he states that he only has the registration papers for one of the vehicles namely the Dump Truck as all the rest were destroyed in the fire, the registration paper produced is the insurance certificate for the Dump Truck for the period from the 13 May 1991 which in spite of what looks like alterations on that certificate must only be for one year till 1992. The evidence perhaps just supports the existence of the Dump Truck even though there is no current registration papers for the time of the incident. So whether it actually was still registered and operating at the time of the incident is not clear. It would always be open to subpoena the Motor Vehicles Insurance (PNG) Trust for copies or a print-out of appropriate insurance details. Also if the truck was...