John Vulupindi v John Gideon (2006) N3925

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Date: 22 June 2006
• Citation: (2006) N3925
• Docket Number: CIA NO 4 0F 2006
• Court: National Court
• Year: 2006

Full Title: CIA NO 4 0F 2006; John Vulupindi v John Gideon (2006) N3925

National Court: Cannings J

Judgment Delivered: 22 June 2006

APPEAL

Appeal—whether District Court made decision against the weight of evidence—oral contract to hire truck for election campaign purposes—whether the person entering into contract had authority to do so—principles of agency—actual and ostensible authority.

The respondent sued the appellant in the District Court for unpaid rental of a truck used by the appellant in his election campaign. The District Court found in the respondent’s favour. The appellant appealed on the ground that the District Court decision was against the weight of the evidence and he did not authorise anyone to hire the respondent’s truck.

Held:

(1) A person (an agent) who says (or ‘holds out’) that he or she is acting on behalf of another person (the principal) can enter into a binding agreement on behalf of the principal in two ways:

• if the agent has the actual authority to do so; or

• if the agent has ostensible (also known as apparent) authority to do so.

(2) Ostensible authority exists when the principal holds out (ie acts in a way that creates an impression) that the agent has authority to act on his or her behalf.

(3) Here, the appellant conferred ostensible authority on a person who held himself out as chairman of one of his election campaign committees, to enter into binding agreements on his behalf. He was bound by the contract the chairman entered into on his behalf.

(4) The District Court made no error of law and the appeal was dismissed.

Cases cited

The following cases are cited in the judgment:

AGC (Pacific) Ltd v Woo International Pty Ltd [1992] PNGLR 100; Egga Pua v Otto Benal Magiten (2005) N2892; Michael Yai Pupu v Tourism Development Corporation [2002] PNGLR 201; Papua New Guinea Forest Authority v Concord Pacific Ltd (No 2) (2003) N2465; Paul Torato v Sir Tei Abal [1987] PNGLR 403; Peter Kirin v John Paroda (2004) N2599

APPEAL

This was an appeal from a decision of the District Court upholding a claim for breach of contract.

22 June, 2006

1. CANNINGS J: This is an appeal against a decision of the District Court at Kimbe, constituted by Mr R Gavuri, in which his Worship upheld a claim for damages for breach of contract.

2. The appellant, John Vulupindi, was the successful candidate for the Talasea Open seat in the 2002 general election. The respondent, John Gideon, claimed that he hired his Isuzu truck to the appellant’s supporters to use for campaign purposes. The appellant won the election and the respondent approached him for payment, but he refused to pay, saying that he never authorised the hire of the truck. The respondent took the dispute to the District Court.

DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS

3. On 10 March 2005, the respondent filed a complaint in the District Court. There were two defendants: John Vava (the appellant’s executive officer) and the appellant.

4. The complaint was that during the 2002 general election John Vava and other supporters of the appellant hired the respondent’s Isuzu truck. The respondent paid all running costs of the truck.

5. The respondent claimed K3,000.00 for the running costs and K3,600.00 for hire of the truck (calculated at the rate of K200.00 per day for 18 days), a total of K6,600.00.

6. The complaint was tried before the District Court on 9 August 2005. No oral evidence was called. It was agreed that the court would make its decision based on affidavit evidence. The respondent (then the complainant) relied on three affidavits. The appellant (then the second defendant) relied on one affidavit. The evidence in the affidavits is...