DC566

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[In the District Court of Justice]

CASE NO. 84 OF 2001

PAULINE NAKA
Complainant

v

DINDI KOYALE
Defendant

Tabubil: P. Monouluk
2002: 13th, 15th, 20th February.

False Pretence – Defendant promised to marry complainant – Complainant sues for false pretense and injury to her status as an unmarried woman – Sexual intercourse obtained by way of false pretense.

Assessment of Damages – Action for damages and not bride price – Chance of a good bride price and a good marriage diminished – No loss of virginity – Complainant partly to be blamed.

Cases cited:
1. Samuel Era V. Susan Paru, [1994] PNGLR 593.

Complainant in person
Defendant in person

20th February, 2002.

1. P. MONOULUK: This is a claim under false pretence for damages. The complainant Ms Pauline Naka is a young woman from the Simbu Province and now lives at Seven Kona, Tabubil, Western Province. She sues the defendant Mr Dindi Koyale also a young man from the Southern Highlands Province who now lives in Kiunga, Western Province.

2. Ms Naka alleges that in January, 2000 Mr Koyale began courting her. She says the relationship started after Mr Koyale assured her and her family that he would marry her and will take good care of her and her child from a previous relationship. He also assured them that he would pay bride price later. With that assurance Ms Naka unreservingly gave herself to Mr Koyale and for more than four (4) months they court each other.

3. Mr Koyale did not deny courting Ms Naka nor did he deny lying to her about marrying her. He says and I quote: "yu save pasin bilong ol man ya". He basically lied to Ms Naka to get what he wanted. On that basis I find Mr Koyale liable for false pretence against Ms Naka.

ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES

4. Ms Naka claims five thousand kina (K5,000.00) as compensation for what Mr Koyale had done to her. This amount she says is equivalent to the amount in bride price Mr Koyale would have paid for her. To substantiate her claim she says that they lived together like husband and wife for a year between 2000 and 2001. It was Mr Koyale who willfully misled her into believing him that he was a genuine and honourable man and would live up to his promises. She says that she was a young woman with a good marriage prospect until she was used, misused and abused by Mr Koyale and dumped by him thereby diminishing her chance of a good marriage in future.

5. Mr Koyale on the other hand says that they were together for only four (4) months and did not live like husband and wife as claimed by Ms Naka. Moreover he says that Ms Naka was not a virgin and did not bore him a child but had a child from a previous failed relationship and therefore could not have suffered immensely.

6. I must make it clear that Ms Naka is suing for damages for having been misled by Mr Koyale. We are not here to discuss any unpaid bride price simply because Mr Koyale is no longer with Ms Naka and is not going to in the future. My purpose is to ascertain a reasonable amount in damages to adequately compensate Ms Naka for the injuries she suffered to her status as a direct consequence of Mr Koyale’s action.

7. I believe Ms Naka is partly to be blamed for the state she is now in. Having gone through a failed relationship in the past, this should now make her wiser in dealing with people of Mr Koyale’s caliber who are only after one thing. I find Ms Naka a strong and brave person to come to court and publicly assert her right to redress in this type of situation. Not many women would do that. I believed had it not been for Mr Koyale’s lies Ms Naka would not allow him to have sexual intercourse with her. Nevertheless Ms Naka now has suffered injury to her status as an unmarried woman. No doubt Ms Naka may also have been a subject of ridicule in the community. Her chance to find a good husband and for her relatives to get a good bride price may also have diminished further. 

8. I would have made an order in the vicinity of two thousand kina (K2,000.00) had Ms Naka was a virgin prior to Mr Koyale meeting her as in the case of Samuel Era V Susan Paru, [1994] PNGLR 593. In this case Woods J. in dismissing the appeal said the respondent – Ms Paru in loosing her virginity to the appellant had, among others, suffered personal injury and therefore lost something valuable to her and is entitled to one thousand six hundred kina (K1,600.00) as ordered by the Ialibu District Court. However, in this case at hand the only claim is for false pretence and injury done to Ms Naka’s status as an unmarried woman and not for personal injury therefore I find Mr Koyale liable in the sum of one thousand kina (K1,000.00).

Orders accordingly.