Jacobs v Kwaindu [1991] PNGLR 366

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Citation: [1991] PNGLR 366
• Date: 18 October 1992
• Court: National Court
• Year: 1991

Full Title: Jacobs v Kwaindu [1991] PNGLR 366

National Court: Los J

Judgment Delivered: 18 October 1992

1 Real property—ministerial approval—party cannot rely on requirement of approval until he has taken steps to take such approval—s69 Land Act (Ch185)

2 VENDOR AND PURCHASER—Contract for sale of land—Evidence of—Note or memorandum in writing—Letter from vendor/landlord supporting application for finance—Letter sufficient—Specific performance granted—Frauds and Limitations Act 1988, s4.

The Frauds and Limitations Act 1988, s4, provides:

"No action shall be brought upon a contract for the sale or other disposition of land or an interest in land unless the contract, or some note or memorandum of the contract, upon which the action is brought is in writing signed—

(a) by the person against whom the action is brought; or . . . "

In proceedings for specific performance of a contract for the sale of land the purchaser alleged an oral contract between himself as tenant and the vendor as landlord evidenced by a letter provided by the vendor to a bank for the purposes of the purchaser obtaining finance, which provided in part as follows:

"In those circumstances, I have decided to sell the property only for K32,000 and [illegible] for K3,000 taking the total purchase price to K35,000. I consider this figure as reasonable as after allowing for say K15,000 discount if I was to sell it to someone outside for K50,000."

Held:

(Granting specific performance) The letter from the purchaser to the bank was a sufficient note or memorandum for the purposes of s4 of the Frauds and Limitations Act 1988.

Barrier Wharfs Ltd v W Scott Fell & Co Ltd (1908) 5 CLR 647, Clifton v Palumbo [1944] 2 All ER 497 and Ningiga v Koavea [1988–89] PNGLR 312.

Statement of Claim

These were proceedings in which the plaintiff sought specific performance of a contract for the sale of a house property.

___________________________

Los J: The plaintiff has brought an action against the defendant seeking an order for specific performance of a sale agreement over a house located at section 271, allotment 41, Erehu. In the alternative he seeks an order for damages for breach of contract by the defendant.

The plaintiff and his family moved into the house about July 1984 when he was in the employment of a company known as Theodist. The property was then owned by someone other than the defendant. In 1985, the defendant became the owner of the house through a mortgagee sale. The plaintiff continued to live in the house and his company was paying a...