Narayan Gehlot v PNG Power Limited

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Court: National Court
• Judge: Dowa J
• Judgment Date: 30 September 2025
• Neutral Citation: N11502
• Docket Number: WS NO. 603 OF 2015
• Date: 30 September 2025
• Counsel: K. Keindip, for the plaintiff,M Tusais, for the defendant,Counsel

N11502

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

WS NO. 603 OF 2015

Between

Narayan Gehlot

Plaintiff

v.

PNG Power Limited

Defendant

LAE: Dowa J

8 November, 19 December 2022; 30 September 2025

CONTRACT — Contract for consultancy service — oral contractual arrangement on ad hoc basis-whether there was a binding contract-terms vague and indefinite-arrangement in defiance of Board decision-no valid contract due to uncertainty-contract void ab initio

Whether the contract was illegal for breach of procurement requirements under Public Finances (Management) Act — and Independent Public Business Corporation of PNG Act-Contract illegal and unenforceable

Quantum Meruit-claim can be considered for actual performance. No hard and fast rule in determining quantum meruit based on innocence-each case to be determined on its own merits to do justice — not just to award damages on quantum merit-claim dismissed.

Cases cited

Yooken Paklin v The State (2001) N2212

Jonathan Mangope Paraia v The State (1995) N1343

Samot v Yame (2020) N8266

NKW Holdings v Poladin Solutions PNG Ltd (2020) 8339

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

Titus Tumba v Samson (2020) N8721

Woodward v Woodward (1987) PNGLR 92

Fly River Provincial Government vs. Pioneer Health Services Limited (2003) SC705

The State vs. Barclay Bros (PNG) Ltd (2004) N2507

Delphi Corporate Investigations Ltd vs. Bernard Kipit (2003) N2480

Leontine Ofoi vs. Kris Bongare (2007) N3248

Teine vs. University of Goroka (2019) SC1881

Steven Turik vs. Mathew Gubag (2013) N5132

Ray v Numara (2018) N7380

National Broadcasting Corporation vs. Taison (2019) PGNC 266; N8083

Tomala v National Housing Estate Limited (2020) N9016

Counsel

K. Keindip, for the plaintiff

M Tusais, for the defendant

Lawyers for the plaintiff: Gamoga & Co. Lawyers

Lawyers for the defendant: Dentons PNG Lawyers

JUDGMENT

1. Dowa J: The Plaintiff claims damages against the Defendant for unpaid invoices for services rendered under an oral consultancy agreement for the period between March 2013 and July 2014.

Background Facts

2. The Plaintiff is a USA citizen. He holds a doctorate degree (PHD) in electrical engineering. He was engaged by the Defendant to provide consultancy services on power production and consumption in Papua New Guinea. The engagement was partly oral and partly in writing. The Plaintif's engagement commenced in March 2013. The Plaintiff alleges it was for a term of three years

3. The Plaintiff alleges that the major terms of the contract were that he would be paid USD 399.00 per hour for actual hours worked or fixed 40 hours per week whichever is more together with transport allowances, accommodation and airfares between PNG and home (USA/India).

4. Between March and August 2013, the Plaintiff issued four invoices totaling USD 268,257.92 for the services he provided for the period between March 2013 and August 2013 which were settled in full.

5. In 2014, the Plaintiff rendered three further invoices for the following:

i) Remnant of invoice payment etc (May 2013 to 23 August 2013) – US$193,533.

ii) PPL HQ Air condition report (September to November 2013) – PGK121,000.

iii) Wages & Transport Allowance (1 December 2013 to 31 July 2014) – US$551,760 and PGK84,700.

6. The Defendant disputed the invoices and did not pay. Aggrieved, the Plaintiff instituted the current recovery proceedings.

7. The Defendant filed a defence, pleading that the Plaintiff was not engaged as a consultant, that the services he rendered on ad hoc basis were paid in full, and his further and continuous service was terminated by the Board on 24^th July 2013 and thus the Defendant is not liable.

Trial

8. The trial was conducted on both issues of liability and damages. It involved oral examination and tender of affidavit evidence.

Evidence-Plaintiff

9. The Plaintiff gave evidence both orally and by affidavit evidence. In respect of affidavits, the Plaintiff relied on the following:

(a) Exhibit P1-Affidavit of Narayan Lal Gehlot sworn 29 December 2015 filed 14 March 2016 (Court Doc no. 15)

(b) Exhibit P2-Affidavit of Narayan Gehlot sworn 26 November 2021 and filed 2 December 2021 (court Doc no. 125)

(c) Exhibit P3-Affidavit of Alex Oa Sworn 4 November 2020 and filed 9 November 2020 (Court doc no. 87)

(d) Exhibit P4-Affidavit of Kalip Salo sworn 14 October 2020 and filed 9 November 2020 (Court doc no.85)

(e) Exhibit P5-Affidavit of John Tangit sworn 21 April 2021 and filed 7 May 2021 (Court doc no. 100)

10. This is the summary of the Plaintiff's evidence. The Plaintiff is a US citizen. He holds a doctorate degree in Electrical Engineering. He came to PNG in 2009 as Associate Professor with PNG University of Technology. He was terminated from employment by Unitech in 2011. On 6^th March 2013, he was approached by the Chief Executive of PNG Power Ltd, Tony Koiri, to provide consultancy services on technical matters for the Defendant which he agreed subject to conducive terms and conditions. The Plaintiff was asked to provide technical advice on matters listed in paragraph 7 of his Affidavit (Exhibit P1). He was subsequently asked by both CEO Koiri, CEO John Tangit and IPBC Minister Ben Micah to provide consultancy services on various dates and places between 6^th March 2013 and 22^nd June 2014.

11. The Plaintiff deposed he agreed with CEO Tangit to provide consultancy services on the following terms:

a. Plaintiff would be paid US$399.00 per hour for actual hours worked or fixed at 40 hours per week, whichever is more.

b. Defendant would at its cost accommodate the Plaintiff during the term of the consultancy.

c. Defendant would pay the Plaintiff transport allowance of K350.00 per day.

d. Defendant would reimburse all air travel within PNG and home visit (USA/India).

e. The Plaintiff's engagement would be for a term of 3 years

12. The Plaintiff's engagement was temporary pending formal contract. No formal contract was signed but due to urgency of certain matters he was asked to provide the services on ad hoc basis. He was provided with accommodation with all utilities paid for by the Defendant. During the currency of the engagement the Plaintiff provided professional services and attended to several assigned tasks all listed at paragraph 14 of his affidavit (Exhibit P1). He then issued the following four (4) invoices and got paid in US dollars:

Date of Invoice	Amount
1.	24/04/2013	USD 67,058.56
2.	13/05/2013	USD 25,852.50
3.	25/07/2013	USD 77,306.36
4.	21/10/2013	USD 98,040.50
Total		USD 268,257.92

13. In 2014, the Plaintiff rendered three more invoices in respect of the following claims:

i. Remnant of invoice payment etc (May 2013 to 23 August 2013) – US$193,533.00.

ii. PPL HQ Air condition report (September to November 2013) – PNGK121,000.00.

iii. Wages & Transport Allowance (1 December 2013 to 31 July 2014) – US$551,760.00 and PGK84,700.00.

14. The Plaintiff deposed he did not receive payment for the three invoices which remain outstanding, and his contract was eventually terminated on 29^th July 2014.

Alex Oa

15. The witnesses Alex Oa, Kalip Salo and John Tangit gave evidence for the Plaintiff. Alex Oa was employed by the Defendant as General Manager-Performance Engineering. He was part of the management team. He deposed the Plaintiff being engaged by the Defendant to provide consultancy services although he is not privy to the financial terms agreed. He deposed that the Plaintiff did provide consultancy services when CEO Tangit engaged him in May 2013 and was provided accommodation by the Defendant.

16. At this juncture it is important to note that Alex Oa did not give any evidence of the terms of the Plaintiff's engagement. It is also important to mention that Oa made no mention of the investigation and report done on 13^th April 2016 on the Air Condition System Failure at the PNG Power Head Quarters endorsed by him as General Manager — Performance Engineering to show whether the Defendant benefited from work allegedly done by the Plaintiff in the Air Condition system.

Kalip Salo

17. The witness, Kalip Salo, was employed by the Defendant as General Manager-Corporate Service at the material time. He deposed that he was aware that the Plaintiff was engaged by CEO Koiri to provide consultancy services in March 2013. As part of the management team, he was involved in meetings with the CEO and the Plaintiff. He is aware that the Plaintiff did attend to providing consultancy services at least on two occasions in March 2014 and June 2014. He deposed that the Plaintiff was provided accommodation by the Defendant and was paid for his services in US dollars for the four invoices rendered. He deposed that the Plaintiff rendered further invoices, but payment was not made for unknown reasons.

18. At this juncture it is important to note that the witness Salo was generally giving evidence of matters he was informed about and became aware as part of the management team but offered no direct evidence on the terms of the consultancy services.

John Tangit

19. Late John Tangit is the former CEO of the Defendant. He passed away before the trial. His affidavit was allowed into evidence despite objections but subject to weight. The Court is mindful that the deponent was not cross examined, and the Court will give whatever weight due considering all other evidence to do justice in the circumstances.

20. Tangit deposed Plaintiff was engaged initially by former CEO Koiri. When he became CEO, he continued to engage the Plaintiff's services due to urgent needs. During the term of his engagement Plaintiff was required to travel with Minister Ben Micah for meetings throughout the country. The Plaintiff was provided accommodation by the Defendant. The Defendant agreed to pay USD 399.00 per hour for actual hours worked or a fixed rate of 40 hours per week. The term was for three years commencing March 2013. Tangit deposed Plaintiff was paid for the first four Invoices rendered. Plaintiff sent three more...