Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Papua New Guinea District Court

Alo v Mondo [2006] PGDC 8; DC343 (3 January 2006)

DC343

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]

CASE 3208 OF 2005

BETWEEN

Jacklinn Alo
Complainant

V

Paul Mondo
Fisrt Defendant

Michael Kapal
Second Defendant

NCDC
Third Defendant

Counsel
For The Complainant: Mr. Tau Rima
Fort The Defendant: No Appearances By Defendants

Port Moresby: Gauli
2005: December 13th

REASONS FOR DECISION

GAULI, APM: The Complainant sued the Defendants and claimed in damages for a sum of K10, 000.00 for personal injuries she sustained and for the loss of her properties.

Brief Facts

On 02nd August 2005 the Complainant was selling her betelnuts, cigarettes and food stuff at the National Court premises when the First and Second Defendants confiscated the complainants goods and carried them to the vehicle registered number CAM 601.And one of them hit the complainant on her right shoulder several times with a baton causing serious injuries to her shoulder. The Complainant’s properties being confiscated were bananas, lamb flaps, frying flat iron and firewood. The Complainant then went to Port Moresby General Hospital for treatment.

The proceedings on the 13th December 2005 was heard ex parte. The Complainant relied on the evidence of Jacklin Alo and her only witness Morobe Tabu. From the evidence presented before Court, I was satisfied that the Defendants assaulted the Complainant and also confiscated her goods.

Unfortunately I dismissed the case for the reasons that:

"The National Court premises is not a declared market area for the public to market their goods.

The National Court area at Waigani is one of the Nations most important area which need to be given highest respect. This is an area where the Nations Highest Courts are located where justice is discharged. The public need to keep its surrounding areas clean and tidy as possible.

The public need to perform their marketing’s in the proper market places that are declared for doing marketing.

The Complainant in her affidavit stated in paragraphs 4 as follows:

"4. As the vehicle registered No CAM 601 stopped, one of the inspectors got out of the said vehicle and shouted: who told you people to market here."

This statement could mean that those vendors at the National Court premises were told sometimes earlier not to sell their good their. And so when the inspectors saw the Complainant and the others selling their goods that day, the inspectors reacted in the way they did by using force.

It is a common practice as seen in the streets of Port Moresby, that although public warnings have been issued to the public not to sell or market goods along public streets or public areas, such the National Court area, the public defy those warnings.

Where a person defies such public warnings and he or she continues to sell at those restricted place, and the person is injured and his or her goods confiscated that person must not expect favour from the court. He or She has not come with clean hands. He must not expect justice in his or her favour.

For the reasons given about the Court saw fit and just to dismiss the claim. It would be most unfair and unjust for a person to enrich himself or herself out of his or her unlawful act. Selling or marketing at places undeclared for markets would be an unlawful act. Thus the claims against the defendants are dismissed.

Dated: 03rd January 2006

..............
M. GAULI
Magistrate