David Haluya v Samson Gurel and Independent State of Papua New Guinea (2001) N2109

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Court: National Court
• Citation: (2001) N2109
• Date: 28 May 2001
• Year: 2001

Full Title: David Haluya v Samson Gurel and Independent State of Papua New Guinea (2001) N2109

National Court: Sakora J

Judgment Delivered: 28 May 2001

1 Law of Torts—Wrongful arrest—False imprisonment—Malicious prosecution—Damages for.

2 Constitutional Law—Rights of all persons—Liberty of the person—Damages for—Constitution, s42(1)

___________________________

Sakora J: The plaintiff's claim is for damages arising out of his arrest, charge and prosecution by the police under a provincial liquor licensing legislation. These actions of the law enforcement agency of the State resulted in the plaintiff being convicted and imprisoned for a term of 6 months (upon default in payment of a fine of K200 ordered to be paid the very same afternoon of the sentence being imposed).

The proceedings were commenced by the issuance of a Writ of Summons filed 2 May 1996 claiming, as stated above, damages for the following wrongs on the part of the State agency, the first defendant and his subordinates:

1. Wrongful arrest.

2. Breach of s42 of the Constitution.

3. False imprisonment.

4. Malicious prosecution.

The Writ having been duly served on the State on 6 May 1996, the Solicitor–General filed and served a Notice of Intention to Defend on behalf of the first and second defendants some 49 days later (some 19 days outside the prescribed period). On 24 September 1996, the plaintiff applied for and had judgment regularly entered against the defendants (there being no Defence filed under the National Court Rules (Ch38) (NCR)), and for damages to be assessed at a later date.

After several unsuccessful attempts by the plaintiff's lawyers to have the matter set down for hearing, due in the main (as the records demonstrate) to the procrastination of the lawyers for the defendants, it came before me on 17 August 2000 when I heard counsel and reserved decision.

Background

The facts relied upon by the plaintiff have not been challenged despite a Notice of Institution to Defend having been filed (supra). And it is upon these facts that the previous National Court ordered the entry of a default judgment against the defendants. And they (facts) demonstrate the following circumstances.

The...