Linda Daniel Trading as Reo Rent a Car v Linda Taminza Salala and Others

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Court: National Court
• Judge: Dowa J
• Judgment Date: 14 August 2025
• Neutral Citation: N11423
• Citation: N11423, 2023-02-09,2023-03-31,2023-03-31,2023-04-11
• Docket Number: WS NO. 250 OF 2020
• Year: 2025
• Date: 14 August 2025
• Counsel: K Keindip for the plaintiff,E Tienare for the defendants,Counsel

N11423

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

WS NO. 250 OF 2020

Between:

Linda Daniel Trading as Reo Rent a Car

Plaintiff

v.

Linda Taminza Salala

First Defendant

and

Milton Kerua

Second Defendant

LAE: Dowa J

11 July, 23 August 2023; 14 August 2025

CIVIL CLAIM — contract for hire of motor vehicle — terms of contract-loss of vehicle via accident during hire — claim for breach of contract — whether there was a binding contract-who were the contracting parties-whether the plaintiff was owner of business name-whether certificate of registration required for proving ownership-whether the plaintiff proved on the balance of probabilities that the defendant breached terms of contract — plaintiff failed to prove liability-proceedings dismissed.

Cases cited

Yooken Paklin v The State (2001) N2212

Kei v MVIT (1992) PNGLR 195

Paikel v Kaiwe Pty Ltd (1997) PNGLR 603

Danga v MVIT (1997) N1665

Nagari v Rural Development Bank (2007) N3295

Molu v Pena (2009) N3817

Paraka v Upaiga & Aother (2010) N4090

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

Peter Wanis v The State (1995) N1250

Taru v Pacific MMI Insurance Limited (2016) N6305

NKW Holdings v Poladin Solutions PNG Ltd, (2020) 8339

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

Titus Tumba v Samson (2020) N8721

Waranaka v Dusava (2009) SC940

Counsel

K Keindip for the plaintiff

E Tienare for the defendants

Lawyers for the plaintiff: Gamoga & Co lawyers

Lawyer for the defendants: Public Solicitor

DECISION

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

2. The Plaintiff is claiming damages against the Defendant for breach of contract and for damage done to her motor vehicle, Nissan Navara Registration No REO 999 in a motor vehicle accident at 11^th Street, Lae, Morobe Province.

3. The Plaintiff alleges that her vehicle was hired by the first Defendant on 4^th April 2022 for five days. The first Defendant did not return the vehicle within the five days as agreed. The Plaintiff found out later that her vehicle got involved in a road accident due to negligence of the second Defendant.

4. The Plaintiff alleges that the first Defendant breached the terms of the agreement by failing to return the vehicle in good condition. As a result of the breach of contract and negligent actions of the Defendants, the Plaintiff suffered loss and damage.

5. Aggrieved, the Plaintiff filed recovery proceedings seeking damages.

Trial

6 The trial was conducted on 11^th July 2023. Both parties tendered evidence by consent without cross-examination and submissions were presented on 23^rd August 2023.

Evidence-The Plaintiff

7 The Plaintiff relies on the following affidavits which were tendered into evidence and exhibited as follows.

1. Affidavit of Linda Daniel filed 19^th October 2022 exhibited P1

2. Affidavit of Tovani Tovaninara filed 14^th December 2022 exhibited P2

3. Affidavit of Linda Daniel filed 14^th December 2022 exhibited P3

4. Affidavit in Response of Teckla Tovaninara filed 29^th June 2023 exhibited P4

8. This is the summary of the Plaintiff Linda Daniel's evidence. She deposed she operates a vehicle hire business under trade name Reo Rent a Car. The Plaintiff deposed she is the owner of the motor vehicle, Nisan Navara Registration No. REO 999. On 4^th April 2022 the Plaintiff entered an agreement with the first defendant to hire her vehicle for five days at K 700.00 per day. The first Defendant paid K3,500.00 and took delivery of the vehicle on 4th April 2022. The first Defendant did not return the vehicle in the same condition. Instead, the first Defendant allowed the second Defendant to drive the vehicle which eventually got involved in a road accident on the morning of 9^th April 2022.

9. The Plaintiff deposed the accident was caused by the negligence of the second Defendant. The second defendant was charged for driving without due care and attention and was convicted by the Lae District Court. As a result of the accident, the Plaintiff's vehicle was damaged and would cost more than K 97,492.75 for repairs and the Plaintiff claims damages accordingly.

10. The Plaintiff rejected the first Defendant's contention that there was no direct hire agreement between the Plaintiff and the first Defendant for the hire of her vehicle by the first Defendant. She deposed that Teckla Tovaninara who initiated the hire with the first Defendant, was her agent who was acting for her.

11. The Plaintiff's evidence was supported by Teckla Tovaninara who deposed that she was acting for the Plaintiff as agent when she arranged to hire out the Plaintiff's vehicle to the first Defendant.

The Defendants' Evidence

12. The Defendants rely on the following affidavits which were tendered into evidence and exhibited as follows.

a. Affidavit in Support of Linda Taminza Salala filed 9^th February 2023 exhibited D1

b. Affidavit of Margaret Salala filed 31^st March 2023 exhibited D2

c. Affidavit of Clair Augwi filed 31^st March 2023 exhibited D3

d. Affidavit of Milton Kerua filed 11^th April 2023 exhibited D4

13. This is the summary of the Defendants' evidence. The first Defendant denied entering any hire agreement with the Plaintiff. She entered an agreement with one Teckla Tovaninara on 18^th March 2022 to hire her vehicle, a Nissan Navara Utility, for five (5) days at K 700 per day. She paid K3,500.00 to Teckla Tovaninara's bank account on 23^rd March 2022. She picked up the vehicle from Teckla Tovaninara on 4^th April 2022. She did not sign any hire agreement on that day. She was not told by Teckla Tovaninara that the vehicle was owned by the Plaintiff and that she was only acting as agent for the Plaintiff. On the morning of 10^th April 2022, the first Defendant was asked to sign a hire agreement by Teckla Tovaninara. She refused to sign. She was then confronted by Teckla and the Plaintiff in the company of a Police Officer to sign the hire agreement which she signed under duress. The first Defendant deposed she was surprised when she was told the Plaintiff was the owner of the motor vehicle.

Issues

14. The issues for consideration are:

a. Whether the Defendants are liable.

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

Burden of Proof

15. The burden of proving the claim rests on the Plaintiff and she 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 (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 the Defendants are liable

16. The Plaintiff submitted that she entered a valid contract with the first Defendant to hire her motor vehicle, Nissan Navara at the rate of K 700 per day for five days. The hire period was for five days commencing 4th April 2022, and the vehicle was to be returned on 9th April 2022. She failed to return the vehicle in good condition and caused an accident. As a result, she suffered loss and damage which she now seeks redress.

17. The first Defendant submitted that she did not enter any agreement with the Plaintiff to hire her vehicle and is not liable.

Who are the contracting Parties

18. The Plaintiff's claim is for breach of hire contract. 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.

19. The terms of the hire agreement are:

a. The hire rate for the vehicle was K 700.00 per day

b. Hire period was five (5) days

c. Hire period was from 4th to 9th April 2022.

d. All payment to be made before delivery of the Vehicle.

e. Vehicle to be returned by 9th April 2022.

20. The first Defendant paid K 3,500.00 to the account of one Teckla Tovaninara on 23rd March 2022 and took delivery of the vehicle on 4th April 2022.

21. Although the basic elements of the contract appear to be present, the first Defendant...