National Court of Papua New Guinea

The brief fare as follows. The plaintiff ae first deft defendantndant entered into a contract on 4th March, 1986, whereby the plaintiff would provide removal services for refuse and night soil in the town of Daru and such services would be paid for by the first defendant. Pursuant to Clause 6, thtrcontract was for three years but was renegotiated on 4th March, 1987, for a further three years, commencing that date.

At the expiration of the contract, it was not renewed, however, the plaintiff continued to provide the services and the first defendant continued to pay for such services. There is evidence the cont contract had lapsed on 31st September, 1994, following a six months extension from 1st April, 1994. I cannot follow how came tame to be, but that e evidence before me.

On 2nd April, 1996, the secondecond defendant wrote to the plaintiff and amongst other things, informed laintiff that, “in the meantime alternative arrangemengements for the provision of Garbage and Sanitation Services are being investigated, including the calling of new tenders”.

On 2nd November, 1996, a tender was called by the Western Province Supply and Tenders Board. On 14th January 1997, the second defendant formally advised the plaintiff that its bid for this tender was unsuccessful. On January 1997, the seconsecond defendant, in his capacity as Chairman of Western Province Suand Tenders Board formally ally advised the plaintiff, amongst other things, that a new contract was being executed with the new contractor, and the new contractor shall commence these services on 1st February 1997 whilst the plaintiff’s interim contract would lapse on close of business, 31st January, 1997. Since thater, correspondenondence have been exchanged between the plaintiff and its lawyers and the defendants, subsequently leading to these proceedings.

On 3rd February 1997, the Daru Districtt ordered firstly, that thet the plaintiff was to relinquish the sanitation pans to the new contractor, Regs Services forthwith, and secondly, that the Police Station Commander is to assist Regs Services to enter the plaintiff’s premises to physically remove the sanitation pans and deliver them to the premises of Regs Services. Apparently, thentiff had rhad refused to deliver pans and other equipment to the first defendant following the latter’s request on 16th January, 1997, hence the Districtt proceedings.

Counsel for the plaintiff has made twde two submissions. Firstly, he subm that the the plaintiff was entitled to a notice of termination of the contract and since the defendants had not given proper notice to terminate the contract,plaintiff is entitled to continue with the contract. 160; His s submission is t is that, the Daru District Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this matter because, he submitted, the contract was worth more than K100,000.00, therefore that Court did not jurisdiction. This Chis Court that, in , in the substantive proceedings which are on foot, the plaintiff is seeking various declarations and injunctions including the restraining order it is seeking in paragraph 1 of its notice of motion now before me.

With respect to counsel, I consider that the whole application is misconceived and should be refused.

Firstly, the contract which the plaintiff seeks to rely on had already expired in September 1994. There wasenewal so the sere services including the payment for such services were being rendered on an ad hoc and interim basis. The plaf knew that a tendetender wing proposed and it knew this because the second defendant dant had advised in its letter of 2nd April 1996. There is no provisn theracntract governing the giving of notice of terminationation, but in my view, the plaintiff had been aware as early as April 199at the defendants were reviewing the contract including the calling of a new tender.