MVIL v Martha Kuma
Jurisdiction | Papua New Guinea |
Judgment Date | 09 August 2000 |
Citation | [2000] PNGLR 1 |
Year | 2000 |
Court | Supreme Court |
Judgement Number | SC650 |
Full Title Motor Vehicles Insurance Limited v Martha Kuma (2000)
Supreme Court: Kapi DCJ, Jalina J, Sawong J
Judgment Delivered: 9 August 2000
SC650
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[In the Supreme Court of Justice at Waigani]
SCA 62 of 1999
BETWEEN:
MOTOR VEHICLES INSURANCE LIMITED
Appellant
AND:
MARTHA KUMA
Respondent
Waigani: Kapi DCJ.; Jalina J.; Sawong J
20th June, 9th August 2000
Application for extension of time under s 54(6) of the Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act (Cap 295) — admissibility of evidence given by lawyer to show "sufficient cause".
- Power of the Supreme Court to grant extension on appeal s 16(c) Supreme Court Act (Cap 37) — principles considered.
A. Kandakasi for the appellant
A. Kwimberi for the respondent
9th August 2000
By the Court: On an application made by the respondent, the National Court granted an extension of time within which to give notice of claim to the appellant pursuant to s 54 (6) of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act (Cap 295). The appellant filed an application for leave to appeal and a notice of appeal against this decision.
Application for Leave to Appeal
Counsel for the respondent did not contest the application for leave to appeal on the basis that he conceded that the trial judge erred in granting the extension on the wrong findings of fact. This will become apparent when we consider the notice of appeal. We would grant leave to appeal.
Notice of Appeal
We now proceed to deal with the merits of the appeal. The circumstances giving rise to the appeal are as follows. The respondent was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 8th August 1997. The respondent's husband gave instructions to Dowa Lawyers to pursue a claim for damages on 15th August 1997. Apparently, the lawyer advised the respondent's husband to obtain Road Accident Report and Medical Report as they were prerequisites to a claim against the Appellant. The lawyers acting on this wrong and mistaken view of the law, did not give notice of claim to the appellant immediately but waited for the respondent to provide the reports. When the respondent did not provide the reports for some months, the lawyers then gave notice of claim to the appellant in a letter dated 25th February 1998. This letter was received in the appellant's office on 2nd March 1998. The notice was given well outside the 6 months period and therefore did not constitute notice. The appellant was therefore not obliged to act on the notice.
The respondent's lawyers then wrote to the Insurance Commissioner for extension of time in which to give notice in letter dated 6th March 1998 pursuant to s 54 (6) of the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act (Cap 295). In this application, the lawyers explained the delay in the following terms:
"..our client was unable to give adequate notice to the Trust because she was of the believe that the police accident report was a pre-requisite to lodging a claim against the Trust as she understood from Traffic Police when approached. As explained in the Statutory Declaration the non-availability of the road accident report was due to the Police Officer-In-Charge who has failed in completing the said report in required time.
Our client and relatives kept on checking on Constable R. Koman regularly and the police kept on telling our clients that whenever Constable R Koman returns, he will write our client the accident report."
The Insurance Commissioner did not respond to the application quickly. Lawyers for the respondent wrote five reminder letters to the Commissioner for decision without success until 13th January 1999 when the Commissioner declined the application giving no reasons for decision. The lawyers for the respondent then filed application in the National Court seeking extension of time in which to give notice to the appellant. The Court granted the extension and the appellant has appealed against this decision.
The appellant has appealed on the following grounds:
"3. GROUNDS
(a) His Honour erred in accepting into the evidence and
giving consideration to the sole Affidavit of Mr Zimike, in that its entire content, as to the material matters, were hearsay and inadmissible;
(b) His Honour erred in failing to find that the Affidavit of Mr Zimike was inadmissible, in that it was entirely hearsay.
(c) His Honour erred in failing to find that there was no competent, admissible and relevant evidence in support of the application.
(d) His Honour erred in finding that sufficient cause was established in that:
1. The sole Affidavit in support essentially contained hearsay material and was inadmissible.
2. Otherwise or alternatively, the plaintiff was aware of the requirement to give notice having obtained legal advice 7 days after the alleged accident, that she was not totally incapacitated or hindered by other difficulties in complying with the requirement to give notice, that the Police Road Accident Report,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In The Matter of an Application by Linah Edward (2005) N2804
...v Ben Jalatang (1993) N1274, Leo Duque v Avia Andrew Paru [1997] PNGLR 378, Lucy Ande v Anson Isingi (2001) PNGLR 50, MVIL v Martha Kuma [2000] PNGLR 1, New Zealand Insurance Company Ltd v Chief Collector of Taxes [1988–89] PNGLR 522, Sangam Mote v Sir Alkan Tololo [1986] PNGLR 404, SCR No ......
-
Takai Kapi also known as "Tataki Kapi" v Gregory James Sheppard and Harvey Maladina [Maldina] Trading as Maladinas Lawyers and Aon Risk Services (PNG) Limited (2003) N2323
...N1577, Kia Temai v MVIT (1996) N1442, Martha Limitopa v The Independent State of Papua New Guinea [1988–89] PNGLR 364, MVIL v Martha Kuma [2000] PNGLR 1, Busina Tabe v The State [1983] PNGLR 10, Bernard Juali v The State (2001) SC667, Rabaul Shipping Ltd v Rita Ruru (2000) N2022, Mt Hagen A......
-
Paul Kumba v Motor Vehicles Insurance (PNG) Trust [Motor Vehicle (PNG) Trust] (2001) N2132
...by statute, that notice shall be given.2 Carol Laime v MVIT [1995] PNGLR 224, Rundle v MVIT [1988] PNGLR 20, MVIL v Martha Kuma [2000] PNGLR 1, Irwin Ruap v MVIT (1998) (Unnumbered and Unreported decision of Injia J dated 25 September 1998), Stanley Tendi v MVIT [1996] PNGLR 379, Maclaine v......
-
Maname Malipu v Motor Vehicles Insurance Limited (2009) N3793
...Pato v Motor Vehicles Insurance Ltd (2008) N3403; Michael Ivia v MVIT [1995] PNGLR 183; Ovoa Rawa v MVIT (1994) N1276; MVIL v Martha Kuma [2000] PNGLR 1; Raben Kalalyo v Motor Vehicles Insurance (PNG) Trust [1996] PNGLR 368 JUDGMENT 1. MAKAIL J: The applicant in this case is applying for le......
-
In The Matter of an Application by Linah Edward (2005) N2804
...v Ben Jalatang (1993) N1274, Leo Duque v Avia Andrew Paru [1997] PNGLR 378, Lucy Ande v Anson Isingi (2001) PNGLR 50, MVIL v Martha Kuma [2000] PNGLR 1, New Zealand Insurance Company Ltd v Chief Collector of Taxes [1988–89] PNGLR 522, Sangam Mote v Sir Alkan Tololo [1986] PNGLR 404, SCR No ......
-
Takai Kapi also known as "Tataki Kapi" v Gregory James Sheppard and Harvey Maladina [Maldina] Trading as Maladinas Lawyers and Aon Risk Services (PNG) Limited (2003) N2323
...N1577, Kia Temai v MVIT (1996) N1442, Martha Limitopa v The Independent State of Papua New Guinea [1988–89] PNGLR 364, MVIL v Martha Kuma [2000] PNGLR 1, Busina Tabe v The State [1983] PNGLR 10, Bernard Juali v The State (2001) SC667, Rabaul Shipping Ltd v Rita Ruru (2000) N2022, Mt Hagen A......
-
Paul Kumba v Motor Vehicles Insurance (PNG) Trust [Motor Vehicle (PNG) Trust] (2001) N2132
...by statute, that notice shall be given.2 Carol Laime v MVIT [1995] PNGLR 224, Rundle v MVIT [1988] PNGLR 20, MVIL v Martha Kuma [2000] PNGLR 1, Irwin Ruap v MVIT (1998) (Unnumbered and Unreported decision of Injia J dated 25 September 1998), Stanley Tendi v MVIT [1996] PNGLR 379, Maclaine v......
-
Maname Malipu v Motor Vehicles Insurance Limited (2009) N3793
...Pato v Motor Vehicles Insurance Ltd (2008) N3403; Michael Ivia v MVIT [1995] PNGLR 183; Ovoa Rawa v MVIT (1994) N1276; MVIL v Martha Kuma [2000] PNGLR 1; Raben Kalalyo v Motor Vehicles Insurance (PNG) Trust [1996] PNGLR 368 JUDGMENT 1. MAKAIL J: The applicant in this case is applying for le......