PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

National Court of Papua New Guinea

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> National Court of Papua New Guinea >> 2021 >> [2021] PGNC 532

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

Mabuhay Ltd v Kilicaslan [2021] PGNC 532; N9371 (9 August 2021)

N9371

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]


WS NO. 585 OF 2017


MABUHAY LIMITED
Plaintiff


V


ISMAIL KILICASLAN
First Defendant


PNG PARADISE LIMITED trading as PNG PARADISE HIGH SCHOOL
Second Defendant


Waigani: Kariko, J
2021: 19th May & 9th August


DAMAGES – early termination of lease agreement – payment due on balance of agreement – rental expenses – general damages for stress and anxiety


Cases Cited:


Dia Kopo v Employment Authority of Enga Provincial Government and Enga Provincial and Local Level Government (1999) N1865
Meridian Motors Ltd v Boroko Motors Ltd (2018) N7699
PNGBC v Jeff Tole (2002) SC694
William Mel v Coleman Pakalia and Others (2005) SC790


Counsel:


Ms G Kogora, for the Plaintiff
Ms A Yauieb, for the Defendants


JUDGMENT


9th August, 2021


  1. KARIKO, J: A trial on assessment of damages followed my decision on 9th February 2021 that found the defendants liable for breach of contract.
  2. The brief facts of the case are that the second defendant (Paradise High School) entered into a lease agreement with the plaintiff for the lease of one of the plaintiff’s residential units at Boroko for a term of 12 months, to be tenanted by the first defendant, who was an employee of the High School. The unit was vacated two months into the lease, thereby terminating the agreement.
  3. As relief, the plaintiff seeks damages plus interest and costs.

PLAINTIFF’S EVIDENCE


  1. Evidence in support of the plaintiff’s claims comprised two affidavits by the plaintiff’s accountant, Edward Kembu, which were tendered without objection:
  2. Summarized, the plaintiff’s evidence refers to the facts and circumstances regarding the lease. Mr Kembu stresses that the plaintiff complied with the defendants’ requests for some extra furniture and chattels for the unit before the lease agreement was concluded. The lease was for a term of one year commencing 24th January 2017. The monthly rental was K5,720.00. On 31st January 2017, the Principal of the High School gave notice that the leased unit would be vacated by end of February 2017.
  3. The financial statements and reports of the plaintiff’s business for the years 2016-2018 prepared by Mr Kembu are also produced to show the expected income for the plaintiff in 2017. Mr Kembu claims that there were expenses associated with having the units available for leasing. The costs allocated in respect of the unit leased to the defendants was K49,852.19 for the year. He says that the early termination of the lease resulted in the plaintiff wearing those costs, termed rental expenses.
  4. The deponent also adds that both he and the owner of the plaintiff company, Johnathon Cano, suffered anxiety, distress and hardship following the defendants’ repudiation of the lease agreement. Not only did the plaintiff lose income but they were put to the trouble of preparing the unit to meet the defendants’ requirements, only for the lease to be terminated early.

DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENCE


  1. The defendants also tendered affidavit evidence without objection:
  2. Stated in brief, the first three affidavits support the defendants’ version of the facts and circumstances leading up to the lease agreement and its subsequent termination. The affidavit of Safak Delismail disputes the plaintiff’s claim for rental expenses and argues that the claim is unfounded.
  3. The defendants confirm that pursuant to the lease agreement, the lease was for a term of one year commencing 24th January 2017. The monthly rental was K5,720.00. Upon signing the agreement on 31st December 2016, Paradise High School made payment of K12,694.22 for the following:
  4. On 31st January 2017, the Principal of the High School gave notice that the leased unit would be vacated by end of February 2017, and that duly occurred.

RELIEF


  1. The plaintiff claims the following relief in [8] of its Statement of Claim:
  2. In submissions however, the plaintiff sought:

CONSIDERATION


  1. I bear in mind the relevant principles in relation to assessment of damages endorsed by the Supreme Court in the case of William Mel v Coleman Pakalia and Others (2005) SC790 and summarized by Cannings, J in Steven Naki v AGC (Pacific) Ltd (2006) N5015:

Rental for balance of term


  1. The parties agree that the plaintiff is entitled to the rental that would have been paid for the balance of the lease term, from 1st March 2017 to 23rd January 2018.
  2. As the monthly rental was K5,720.00, the due rental is for 10 months to end of December 2017 plus the 23 days of January 2018. That calculates to 10 x K5,200.00 + (23/31 x K5,200.00) = K52,000.00 + K3,858.06 = K55,858.06. It is noted that a refundable security bond of K5,200.00 was paid upfront. That amount must be deducted, and that leaves the amount of K50,658.06 payable to the plaintiff. GST applied to this amount is K5,065.81.
  3. However, I must consider whether the plaintiff has discharged its obligation to mitigate its loss. It is settled law that a defendant who claims a lack of any mitigation of damages has the burden to establish that; Dia Kopo v Employment Authority of Enga Provincial Government and Enga Provincial and Local Level Government (1999) N1865. In relation to property leases, the defendant must prove on the balance of probabilities that the plaintiff did not take reasonable steps to lease the premises at a reasonable rent for a reasonable term; Meridian Motors Ltd v Boroko Motors Ltd (2018) N7699.
  4. The defendants have not produced any evidence to support their submission that the plaintiff failed to mitigate its losses.

Rental expenses


  1. The basis of this claim is difficult to understand despite counsel’s effort to explain. In any case, I refuse the claim for the simple reason that it is not pleaded. No evidence of matters not pleaded can be allowed or relief granted; PNGBC v Jeff Tole (2002) SC694.

General damages


  1. The plaintiff seeks monetary compensation for anxiety, distress and humiliation suffered by the owner and the accountant of the plaintiff company. It is submitted that this resulted due to the early termination of the lease and after the trouble they were put through to prepare the leased unit to accommodate the defendants’ needs. Neither of these persons is the plaintiff, which is a separate legal entity in the form of an incorporated company. The claim must therefore be refused. Furthermore, it is a relief that that is also not pleaded; PNGBC v Jeff Tole (supra).

Summary


  1. In summary, damages are awarded as follows:

Total - K55,723.87


  1. The damages awarded shall be paid by the second defendant who was the actual lessee while the first defendant was merely the tenant.

INTEREST


  1. I exercise my discretion pursuant to the Judicial Proceedings (Interest on Debts and Damages) Act, Ch. 52, and award 8% interest on the judgment sum to be applied from the date of the filing of this proceeding.

COSTS


  1. Cost shall follow the event.

ORDER


  1. The Court orders:

Namani & Associates: Lawyer for the Plaintiff
M S Wagambie Lawyers: Lawyer for the Defendants


PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/pg/cases/PGNC/2021/532.html