|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
National Court of Papua New Guinea |
N8971
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]
WS. NO. 240 OF 2013
BETWEEN
FRANK LEME
Plaintiff
AND
CONSTABLES BRIAN WINNIE, LAKI TUTE, TOKSY NEMA & ALLAN KUNJIL
First Defendants
AND
INSPECTOR DAVID SEINE
Second Defendant
AND
CHIEF INSPECTOR SAMSON KUA, as HIGHLANDS MOBILE SQUAD COMMANDER
Third Defendant
AND
DAVID MANNING as DIRECTOR MOBILE SQUARD (SPECIAL SERVICES DIVISION)
Fourth Defendant
AND
TOM KULUNGA, POLICE COMMISSIONER
Fifth Defendant
AND
THE INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA
Sixth Defendant
Waigani: Makail, J
2021: 22nd June & 2nd August
LIABILITY – Tort of trespass – Assault by members of police – Act of assault in the course of employment – Vicarious liability – Liability established – Wrongs Miscellaneous (Provisions) Act, Ch 297 – Section 1
ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES – Adequacy of damages – General damages for pain and suffering – Special damages for medical costs – Exemplary damages against tortfeasors – Proof of
Facts
This is an action for trespass to person following an alleged assault of the plaintiff by members of the police identified as the first defendants on 24th May 2012 between the hours of 6:00 and 7:00 pm at the Waigani National and Supreme Courts precincts. The sixth defendant filed a defence and while not denying the assault of the plaintiff, denied that it is vicariously liable for the actions of the first and second defendants on the basis that they had acted outside their scope of duties or it was unauthorised.
Held:
Cases Cited:
James Gunambo & John Pok v. Sergeant Thomas John Upaiga & The State (2010) N3859
Losia Mesa v. The State (2009) N3681
Ronald Iagoro v. Max Yalong & The State (2009) N3642
Andrew Moka v. Motor Vehicles Insurance Limited (2004) SC729
Bau v. Karl (2010) N4123
Counsel:
Mr. L. Tangua with Mr. J. D. Lyipit, for Plaintiff
No appearance, for First, Second, Third, Fourth & Fifth Defendants
Ms. P. Ohuma, for Sixth Defendant
JUDGMENT
2ndAugust, 2021
1. MAKAIL J: This is an action for trespass to person following an alleged assault of the plaintiff by members of the police identified as the first and second defendants on 24th May 2012 between the hours of 6:00 and 7:00 pm at the Waigani National and Supreme Courts precincts.
2. The sixth defendant filed a defence and while not denying the assault of the plaintiff, denied that it is vicariously liable for the actions of the first and second defendants on the basis that they had acted outside their scope of duties or it was unauthorised.
Liability
3. The sixth defendant’s liability is not wholly independent from its servants and agents and the onus of proof is on the plaintiff to establish that the sixth defendant is vicariously liable for the actions and/or omissions of its servants and agents, in this case, the first defendants pursuant to Section 1 of the Wrongs (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, Ch 297.
4. Based on the affidavit in support of the plaintiff sworn and filed 17th May 2013 including medical report from Port Moresby General Hospital dated 24th October 2012 and photographs of head and body injuries, affidavit in Support of James Epi sworn and filed 17th May 2013, affidavit in support of Joseph Tondop sworn and filed 17th May 2013, affidavit of David Dotaona sworn 3rd August 2018 and filed 17th August 2018, affidavit of the plaintiff sworn 10th June 2021 and filed 11th June 2021 and affidavit in support of Sergeant David Joel sworn and filed 27th April 2018, I make the following findings of fact:
Deep lacerations/cuts to his face, mouth and lips.
Two loose teeth.
Loss of blood.
The plaintiff was unable to eat for a month and was bedridden.
Memory loss for several weeks.
Permanent scar to his forehead.
5. As to whether the sixth defendant is vicariously liable for the actions and/or omissions of the first, second, third and fourth defendants, the plaintiff submitted that these defendants were on duty providing security during the political impasse of 2011/2012 and arrest of the former Chief Justice. Thus, the act of assault occurred during the course of their duties and the sixth defendant should be held vicariously liable.
6. The sixth defendant submitted that the actions and/or omissions of the first, second, third and fourth defendants were outside the scope of their duties and it did not sanction them. These defendants went on a frolic and it should not be held vicariously liable for their actions and/or omissions.
7. The facts as found above show that the first to the fourth defendants were on duty at the Court precincts at the time when the former Chief Justice was arrested. They were not on a frolic as contended by the sixth defendant. The purpose of their presence was to maintain peace and order for the good of the general public. It was an authorised operation. In the process, the first defendants stopped the plaintiff and companions and assaulted them after conducting a body search on the instructions of the second defendant. Whether the motive for the assault was because the plaintiff and his companions sided with the former Chief Justice is irrelevant. They simply had no right to assault the plaintiff.
8. For these reasons, I uphold the submissions of the plaintiff and find that the first and second defendants assaulted the plaintiff during the course of their duties and it was an authorised operation. I further find the sixth defendant vicariously liable under Section 1 of the Wrongs (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Ch 297. Judgment on liability is entered against the defendants.
Assessment of Damages
9. As liability has been established, the next question is the appropriate sum of damages to award for general damages for pain and suffering, special damages for medical costs and exemplary damages. The onus of proving his damages still rest on the plaintiff.
General damages
10. The plaintiff submitted that K55,000.00 would be a fair and reasonable sum to award. The sixth defendant submitted a sum between K10,000.00 to K15,000.00.
11. The nature of assault where the first defendants used a gun-butt and boots to strike the plaintiff on his face and body when he was unarmed and defenceless must put this case at the top end of the most serious case of assault. The actions of the first defendants and the second defendant must be condemned in the strongest term as possible. This was truly a cowardly act, unprovoked and unjustified and warranted a higher award of damages to compensate and put the plaintiff as far as money can do, for his pain and suffering.
12. The extent of the injuries is quite serious. As found, he sustained the following injuries:
Deep lacerations/cuts to his face, mouth and lips,
Two loose teeth,
Loss of blood.
13. In addition, he was unable to eat for a month and was bedridden. He suffered memory loss for several weeks and lives with a permanent
scar on his forehead.
14. In James Gunambo & John Pok v. Sergeant Thomas John Upaiga & The State (2010) N3859, the plaintiffs were repeatedly assaulted by members of the police and suffered facial injuries, back, cheek and groin injuries including post-concussion syndrome. The plaintiffs were awarded K18,000.00 and K14,000.00 respectively as general damages for pain and suffering.
15. In Losia Mesa v. The State (2009) N3681, the plaintiff was working in his office at a local-level government when the deputy mayor walked in accompanied by armed police officers – the police officers unlawfully assaulted the plaintiff. They also assaulted him on arrival at the station. He suffered multiple soft tissue facial injuries and eye injury, leading to blurred vision and reduced visual acuity. He was awarded K25,000.00.
16. In another case of Ronald Iagoro v. Max Yalong & The State (2009) N3642 the first defendant policeman struck the plaintiff on his face with a barrel of a gun, and kicked and punched the plaintiff. He fired a shot terrifying the plaintiff and caused severe damage to his eardrum. The plaintiff suffered 38% body impairment. He was awarded K40,000.00 as general damages for pain and suffering.
17. Having considered the injuries sustained by the plaintiffs and the awards made in the above two cases and comparing them with this case, I am of the view that an award between K20,000.00 and K25,000.00 would be within range. As the plaintiff Losia Mesa suffered reduced visual acuity as opposed to the plaintiff who suffered no such vision impairment, the sum awarded will be less than K25,000.00. Additionally, there is no evidence of permanent disability or loss of body function like in the Ronald Iagoro case which would attract a sum of up to K40,000.00. I award K24,000.00.
18. The plaintiff further submitted that there should be an additional sum to cover for inflation based on the Supreme Court decision in Andrew Moka v. Motor Vehicles Insurance Limited (2004) SC729. I accept this submission. The awards in the past cases cited above were decided about 10 to 12 years ago. I add K5,000.00 for inflation and the final sum awarded is K29,000.00.
Special damages
19. According to the statement of claim, the plaintiff claimed a sum of K50,000.00 for special damages. The defendants objected to this claim because it has not been particularised in the statement of claim. However, there is adequate information at [20(c)] of the statement of claim that the plaintiff seeks “K50,000.00 spent to nurse his wound and other unnecessary expenses that he had to dig dipper (sic) into his pocket to alleviate his impacted wounds and other consequences......”.
20. The real issue is its proof because special damages require strict proof. Where the plaintiff is claiming reimbursement of medical costs, he must provide copies of invoices and receipts of payments. The plaintiff did not produce evidence of invoices and receipts of payments to prove that he incurred medical costs up to K50,000.00. Nonetheless, I can see that he has produced a medical report from the Port Moresby General Hospital and so he has incurred some unspecified costs for his recovery. I award K1,000.00 as nominal damages.
Exemplary damages
21. The plaintiff claimed exemplary damages against the sixth defendant because of the actions of the first and second defendants and members of the police. It is common ground between the parties that it is one of the discretionary relief which may be awarded and has a compensatory element which is intended to punish the defendants and serve as a moral retribution and deterrence. I endorse the parties’ position.
22. In this case, I am satisfied that the actions of the members of the police led by the first and second defendants “involved a significant and unwarranted departure from the proper exercise of police powers....”. Bau v. Karl (2010) N4123. The facts of this case warrant an award of exemplary damages against these defendants as primary tortfeasors. This will send a clear message to the other members of the police to refrain from engaging in this type of conduct in future. Members of the police as officers of the sixth defendant are supposed to protect lives and properties and not the other way around. As I found on liability, the first and second defendants were on authorised or sanctioned operation, hence the sixth defendant is vicariously liable for exemplary damages.
23. Five of the members of the police have been identified in the first and second defendants. These members of the police have not filed any responding affidavits to refute the assertion by the plaintiff that they attacked him. Given, this, it is equally fair that they too must be ordered to pay exemplary damages for attacking him. They are ordered to personally pay to the plaintiff a sum of K2,000.00 each, giving a total of K10,000.00. As to the sixth defendant, it is ordered to pay a sum of K5,000.00 to the plaintiff as exemplary damages.
Interests
24. It is common ground between the parties that the rate of interest to award on damages is 2% pursuant to Section 4 of the Judicial Proceedings (Interest on Debts and Damages) Act, 2015. The real issue is when should interest run and whether it will be on whole or part of the sum awarded.
25. While it is noted that the State Claims Court Track One has a huge backlog of pending cases, there is no explanation by the plaintiff in relation to the long delay in getting this ligation to trial after close of pleadings. For this reason, pre-judgment interest is awarded from the date of trial of 22nd June 2021 to the date of judgment which shall be calculated by the parties. As to post-judgment interest, it is awarded at the rate of 2% from the date of judgment on liability until final settlement pursuant to Section 6 of the Judicial Proceedings (Interest on Debts and Damages) Act, 2015. The 2% pre-judgment interest and post judgment interest are awarded on part of the total sum of damages awarded which is K30,000.00. This sum comprises of general damages and nominal damages. The award of exemplary damages is excluded.
Legal costs
26. An award of costs is discretionary. Generally, it is awarded to the successful party, in this case, the plaintiff. As the plaintiff has successfully proven most of the heads of damages, costs are awarded to him, to be taxed, if not agreed.
Order
27. The final orders of the Court are:
________________________________________________________________
Tangua Lawyers: Lawyers for Plaintiff
Solicitor General: Lawyers for Sixth Defendant
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/pg/cases/PGNC/2021/324.html