Chefs Secret Limited v National Capital District Commission and Leslie Alu, in his capacity as city manager,National Capital District Commission and National Capital District Commission andSibona Kema, Managing Director,Chefs Secret Limited andChefs Secret Limited (2011) N4217

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Court: National Court
• Date: 25 February 2011
• Citation: (2011) N4217
• Docket Number: WS 547 OF 2009
• Year: 2011

Full Title: WS 547 OF 2009; Chefs Secret Limited v National Capital District Commission and Leslie Alu, in his capacity as city manager,National Capital District Commission and National Capital District Commission andSibona Kema, Managing Director,Chefs Secret Limited andChefs Secret Limited (2011) N4217

National Court: Sawong,

Judgment Delivered: 25 February 2011

25 February 2011

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE—ruling on a motion to dismiss proceedings for failing to comply with the Claims Act—law on claims against the state is that issuance of a s5 Notice precedes issuing of Writ of summons—whether NCDC is a governmental body—NCDC is a state entity therefore issuing of s5 Notice is a requirement—no such notice was issued—application to dismiss proceedings upheld—s5 Claims By and Against the State Act

Cases Cited

Sarakuma Investment Ltd v Peter Merkendi (2004) N2629; NCDC v Jim Reima (2009) SC993

R U L I N G

25th February, 2011

1. SAWONG, J: This is a ruling on a motion by the Defendants to dismiss the entire proceedings brought by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is claiming a total sum of K 5, 773, 600.00 for loss of business, money loss and an unspecified amount for general damages.

2. The Defendants now assert that the Plaintiff failed to comply with s5 of the Claims By & Against the State Act (‘the Act”).The Plaintiff opposes the application.

3. The brief background leading to instituting these proceedings are as follows. The Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement for the Plaintiff to lease from the National Capital District Commission; part of a property at Ela Beach. Subsequently in March 2007, the defendants issued a Notice to the Plaintiff to vacate the said premises and in the same month the defendants with the aid of the police forcibly evicted the Plaintiff from the premises. The Plaintiff then took out proceedings in the District Court.The dispute was not resolved amicably and as a result the current proceeding were commenced.

4. The principle issue to be determined is whether the Plaintiff gave the State and the Defendants the required notice under s.5 of the Act.

Section 5 reads: -

5. NOTICE...