Bernet Wasonang and Others v Justina Meaka and Others

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Court: National Court
• Judge: Dowa J
• Judgment Date: 03 June 2025
• Neutral Citation: N11316
• Citation: N11316, 2021-07-20,2021-07-20,2021-09-22,2021-12-02
• Docket Number: WS NO. 442 OF 2021
• Year: 2025
• Date: 03 June 2025
• Counsel: E Tienare and G Guri for the plaintiff,J. Meaka Defendant in person,Counsel

N11316

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

WS NO. 442 OF 2021

Between

Bernet Wasonang

First Plaintiff

and

Havilland Taibu

Second Plaintiff

and

Karen Hewo

Third Plaintiff

v.

Justina Meaka

First Defendant

and

Jessy Meaka

Second Defendant

and

Efeta Meaka

Third Defendant

and

Desina Meaka

Fourth Defendant

LAE: Dowa J

19 October, 8 November 2022; 3 June 2025

CIVIL CLAIM — tort of conversion — dispute as to ownership-whether ownership passed to the plaintiff-what constitutes a valid contract-whether the plaintiff proved on the balance of probabilities that the tort of tort of conversion-Damages — Plaintiff has burden to prove damages with credible evidence-quotation for repairs is insufficient-economic loss must be supported by documentary evidence of income — assessed and damages awarded

Cases cited

Yooken Paklin v The State (2001) N2212

Peter Wanis v Fred Sikiot and The State (1995) N1350

Enaia Lanyat v State (1996) N1481

Obed Lalip v Fred Sekiot and The State (1996) N1457

Jonathan Mangope Paraia v The State (1995) N1343

Samot v Yame (2020) N8266

NKW Holdings v Paladin Solutions PNG Ltd (2020) 8339

Keam investments v Toyota Tsusho (PNG) Ltd (2019) N7859

Titus Tumba v Samson (2020) N8721

Counsel

E Tienare and G Guri for the plaintiff

J. Meaka Defendant in person

Lawyer for the plaintiff: Public Solicitor

JUDGMENT

1. Dowa J: This is a ruling on both issues of liability and damages.

Brief Facts

2. The Plaintiff is seeking damages against the Defendants for breach of contract and or alternatively damages for conversion. It is alleged in July 2018, the First Plaintiff entered an agreement with the First Defendant's father, late Joseph Meaka to buy his motor vehicle, a Toyota Land Cruiser Reg. No. LBK 998 for K20,000.00. The First Plaintiff paid K10,000.00 and took delivery of the vehicle. The balance was paid off by instalments by October 2018. After the death of late Joseph Meaka, the first Defendant removed the vehicle from the first Plaintiff, Bernet Wasonang.

3. The first Plaintiff seeks damages for unlawful removal of the said motor vehicle, refund of purchase price and for reimbursement of all repairs done to the vehicle.

Hearing — Plaintiff's Evidence

4. The hearing was conducted by tender of all Affidavits by consent of parties. The Plaintiffs rely on the following Affidavits:

a. Affidavit of Bernard Wasonang filed 20^th July 2021

b. Affidavit In Support of Bernard Wasonang filed 20^th July 2021

c. Affidavit of In Support of Bernard Wasonang filed 22^nd September 2021

d. Affidavit of Bernard Wasonang filed 2^nd December 2021

5. This is the summary of the first Plaintiff's evidence. The first Plaintiff comes from Finschhafen District, Morobe Province. On 19^th July 2018, he entered a verbal agreement with Late Joseph Meaka, the defendant's father for the purchase of his motor vehicle, Toyota Land Cruiser Registration No LBK 998. The vehicle which was initially put up for sale was then sold to the first Plaintiff for K 20, 000.00. The first Plaintiff paid K 10,000.00 on 20^th July 2018. In exchange, the late Joseph Meaka gave the keys and the vehicle to Mr. Wasonang. Late Joseph Meaka passed away on 28^th September 2018. The first Plaintiff paid the balance of the purchase price in instalments between October and November 2018 to the children of late Joseph Meaka.

6. The first Plaintiff deposed that the vehicle was in bad condition and un road-worthy at the time of purchase. Between March and April 2019, he expended K 67,154.42 in repairing the vehicle.

7. In November 2019, the officers from the Public Curator's Office impounded the vehicle at the request of the Defendant, Justina Meaka, claiming that it was an estate property of late Joseph Meaka. Not very long, the Public Curator's Office released the vehicle to the Defendant, Justina Meaka. The first Plaintiff deposed further that all attempts to settle this matter with the assistance of the office of the Public Curator and the Police have failed, resulting in the current proceedings.

8. In respect of the contention by Justina Meaka that she is entitled to the vehicle under a Will left by the late Joseph Meaka, the first Plaintiff says the deceased was sick and, in his village, and was not in Lae and in a proper frame of mind to execute a Will.

Defendant's Evidence

9. The Defendant relies on the Affidavit of Justina Meaka filed 10^th September 2021, Exhibit D1. She is the first Defendant and the daughter of late Joseph Meaka. She says, the First Plaintiff and her late father agreed for the sale of the vehicle at a price of K45,000.00. The Plaintiff paid K10,000.00 only and the balance remained outstanding when her late father died. As part of the settlement agreement the Plaintiff was to use the vehicle for two months only and return the vehicle, but he used it for 509 days. Her late father signed a WILL, appointing her as co-administrator of the WILL. They have filed a Probate Application which is pending hearing. It is part of her job as Administrator of her late father's WILL, that she has collected the subject motor vehicle for proper administration of the Estate pending the grant of probate. She says, the Plaintiff should wait for the outcome of the probate proceedings. The proceedings filed by the Plaintiffs are therefore frivolous and discloses no reasonable cause of action against the Defendants.

Issues

10. The issues for consideration are:

a. Whether there is binding contract for the sale of Motor vehicle LBK 998

b. Whether the Defendants are liable for the tort of conversion

c. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought.

Burden of Proof

11. The burden of proving the claim rests on the Plaintiff and he must discharge the burden on the balance of probabilities. It is not sufficient to make assertions in a statement of claim and hope to be awarded damages claimed. Refer: Yooken Paklin v The State (2001) N2212, Peter Wanis v Fred Sikiot and The State (1995) N1350, Enaia Lanyat v State (1996) N1481; Obed Lalip v Fred Sekiot and The State (1996) N1457; Jonathan Mangope Paraia v The State (1995) N1343, and Samot v Yame (2020) N8266.

a. Whether there is binding contract for the sale of Motor vehicle LBK 998

12. The Plaintiff submits that he entered a valid contract to purchase the late Joseph Meaka's motor vehicle, Toyota Land Cruiser, LBK 998 at the contract price of K 20,000.00. He fulfilled his end of the bargain. The first Defendant unlawfully impounded his vehicle and thus he is entitled to claim damages for tort of conversion or return of the purchase price as well as reimbursement of all repair costs.

13. The first Defendant submits that the pleadings and the terms of the verbal contract for sale are vague. Secondly there is no clear evidence that payments for the purchase price were made and thus the Plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs sought.

Consideration

14. The Plaintiff's claim is for breach of contract and for tort of conversion. The law of contract is settled. It is a trite law of contract that the following elements be present for a contract to be valid and enforceable:

a) Offer

b) Acceptance

c) Intention to create legal relation.

d) Passing of consideration

e) Capacity of parties

Refer to NKW Holdings v Poladin Solutions PNG Ltd, (2020) 8339, Keam investments v Toyota Tsusho (PNG) Ltd (2019) N7859, Titus Tumba v Samson (2020) N8721.

15. The evidence shows late Joseph Meaka is the registered owner of the Motor vehicle, Toyota Land Cruiser, Registration LBK 998 at the time of the contract. He offered to sell his vehicle to the first Plaintiff, Bernet Wasonang, for the purchase price of K 20,000.00. The verbal agreement was made on 19^th July 2018. The Plaintiff Wasonang paid K 10, 000.00 the next day, 20^th July 2018. K 8,000.00 was directly deposited to late Joseph Meaka's BSP Account at BSP Bank and K 2,000.00 in cash was handed over to late Joseph Meaka in a yellow envelop. On receiving the payment, late Joseph Meaka handed over the keys and the motor vehicle to the first Plaintiff. As the vehicle was not road-worthy, it was towed to a workshop for repairs. The whole transaction took place in the presence Haviland Taibu and Karen Hewo. Karen Hewo is the wife of late Joseph Meaka. Karen Hewo confirms the transaction in a statement she made to the Police. The first Plaintiff paid the balance of the purchase price of K 10,000.00 to the children of the deceased between 11^th October and 23^rd November 2018.

16. Clearly, the basic elements of the contract are present. The parties had capacity to contract. The parties intended to create a legal relationship. There was an offer and acceptance and passing of consideration, that is the contract was fully performed, although part of the contract price was passed on to the children rather than the deceased estate.

17. The submission by Defendant Justina Meaka that the Plaintiff's pleadings on a verbal contract are vague and unenforceable lacks merit. Contrary to the Defendant's contention, the pleadings in the statement of claim are in detail and clear. A contract whether written or verbal which meets the basic elements of a contract is valid and enforceable. In the present case, I am satisfied that the verbal agreement met the basic requirements of contract and is therefore valid and enforceable. By reason of this finding, the first Plaintiff is the owner of the motor vehicle Toyota Land Cruiser, LBK 998.

b. Whether the Defendants are liable for tort of conversion

18. In November 2019, the subject motor vehicle was forcefully removed from the Plaintiff by the Public Curators Office, Lae. The first Plaintiff submits that the first Defendant unlawfully instructed the Public Curators Office to impound the vehicle. The Public Curator's office subsequently released the vehicle to the first Defendant on or about February 2020. As a result, the Plaintiff says he was deprived from possession of the vehicle since and seeks damages.

19. In response,...