Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback National Court of Papua New Guinea

Pangua v PNG Power Ltd [2025] PGNC 247; N11400 (25 July 2025)

N11400

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

WS NO. 527 OF 2022

BETWEEN

JOHN PANGUA
Plaintiff

AND

PNG POWER LTD
Defendant

Lae: Toliken J
2025: 25 July

CIVIL – negligence – trial on liability - supply of electricity to building – destruction of property through electrical fault – defendant sole provider of electricity supply – whether defendant’s employee inspected and certified installation of single-phase meter to plaintiff’s property – whether defendant’s employee energised the plaintiff’s property.

Cases Cited
Nil

Counsel
Berem T, for the Plaintiff
Tomake B, for the Defendant

JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY

25 July 2025

1. TOLIKEN J: The Plaintiff claims damages for the loss of his newly constructed 2-storey building through fire at 5-Mile, Lae Morobe Province. He attributes his loss to the negligence of the Defendant’s employee, one Michael Kiapin, who inspected and energized the property using a temporary Single-Phase meter.
   
2. Upon direction by the Court the parties filed a Statement of Agreed and Disputed Facts and Legal Issues. They agreed to the following relevant facts –
   
   • (a) The Plaintiff is the owner of the property which housed a mini mart shop, two residential units and a tyre repair station.
   • (b) The plaintiff commenced construction of the property in August 2017. Construction was completed on or about May 2019. During construction, a Single-Phase Power Supply Meter was installed by one Michael Girai of Michael’s Electrical Contractor, a licenced electrical contractor.
   • (c) After installation, Michael Kiapin inspected and certified the temporary Single-phase supply meter to be correct and subsequently connected the electricity supply.
   • (d) The Single-phase supply was for temporary use only during the construction phase between August 2017 and May 2017 when the property was completed.
   • (e) On 04th June 2019, the property and all assets in it were destroyed by fire resulting in substantial loss to the Plaintiff and to his tenant who was renting the shop on the ground floor.
   • (f) An investigation by the Police and Fire Service concluded that the fire was caused by an electrical fault due to increased consumption or load after the building was completed. The total electrical load required a Three-phase meter. The Defendant did not take part in the investigation.
     
3. The following facts are disputed –
   
   • (a) The Plaintiff’s employee did not connect the power supply from the temporary single-phase meter to the new property which demanded higher power consumption.
   • (b) There was nil stock of single and three-phase meters and credit meters at the Defendants Lae warehouse.
   • (c) The allocation of credit meters was strictly controlled and subjected to conditions apart for new normal connections due to low supply.
   • (d) The Plaintiff did not meet the requirement for the supply of a three-phase meter and hence was not issued one despite his numerous follow-ups.
   • (e) The Defendant’s Lae Office did not readily make available all meters (single and three-phase) so the Plaintiff and other customers could purchase meters of their choice to meet the power supply demands of their properties.
   • (f) On or about 8th April 2019, the Plaintiff entered into a business lease agreement with a Sabug Enterprise Ltd for the lease and use of the Plaintiff’s property at the monthly rate of K3500.00 for a term of 6 years.
   • (g) The Plaintiff lost income which he would have made from the lease of his property for 6 years (subject to termination).
   • (h) On 6th June 2019, the Plaintiff reported the complete loss of his property by fire to the Defendant. None of the Defendant’s officers attended to the scene of the fire.
   • (i) As a result of the complete loss of his property, the Plaintiff suffered physical and financial hardships and inconvenience including shock.
     
4. The following issues fall for determination –
   
   • (1) Whether the Defendant’s employee, Michael Kiapin inspected and certified the single-phase temporary power supply to the Plaintiff’s property prior to it being destroyed by fire.
   • (2) Whether Michael Kiapin energized the Plaintiff’s property prior to it being destroyed by fire.
   • (3) If the answers to the above are in the affirmative, whether the Defendant was negligent thereby resulting in the fire to the property.
   • (4) Whether the Defendant is vicariously liable.
   • (5) Whether the Plaintiff by his own actions or omissions contributed to the destruction of his property by fire.
     
5. The issues can be crystalized into three main issues. These are –
   
   1. Did Michael Kiapin inspect, approved and energize the Plaintiff’s property from the temporary Single-phase power meter?
   2. If he did not, then who did?
   3. If someone else did, who should take responsibility the Plaintiff’s loss?
      
6. The Plaintiff relied on the following Affidavits –
   
   1. Affidavit in Support by John Pangua sworn and filed on 02nd June 2023 (Exhibit P1)
   2. Affidavit of John Pangua sworn on 28th August and filed on 30th August 2024 (Exhibit P2)
   3. Affidavit in Support by John Pangua sworn on 01st July 2025 and filed on 02nd July 2025 (Exhibit P3).
   4. Affidavit in Support by Michael Girai sworn on 28th August 2024 and filed on 30th August 2024 (Exhibit D1).
      
7. On the other hand, the Defendant relied on the Affidavit of Michael Kiapin sworn on 27^th September 2023 and filed on 28^th September 2023 (Exhibit D1), and the Affidavit of Bustin Joseph (Exhibit D2).
   
8. Before I delve into the issues, it instructive to consider the process and procedure for the supply of electricity to buildings by the Defendant. The process is detailed by Michael Kiapin in his Affidavit (Exhibit D2). The Plaintiff did not take issue with it hence I adopt it.
   
9. According to Mr. Kiapin, for all electrical works the following documentation must be submitted and process followed –
   
   1. Notice of Intention to Commence an Electrical Wiring Work – Customer privately engages a certified Electrical Contractor who submits an Intention Notice to PNG Power (PPL) for approval to commence electrical work.
   2. Notice of Completion of Electrical Work – After all electrical work on site is completed the contractor submits a Completion Notice to PPL.
   3. Site Inspection – Upon receipt of Completion Notice, a PPL Inspector conducts a site inspection to confirm if the electrical work complied with PPL standards. If compliant, the process escalates to the next step. If not, PPL Inspector identifies the defects and advises the contractor to rectify them before approval is granted.
   4. Quotation – After the site inspection, the PPL Inspector issues a quotation to the contractor or customer to pay for a service line, the relevant meter type per load requirement, and associated costs.
   5. Payment of Quotation – After payment, a meter is made available for installation.
   6. Erection of Service Line – A copy of the payment receipt is issued to the Linesmen who erect the service line from the main LV [Low Voltage] lines to the customer’s property.
   7. Connection/Installation – After the service line is erected, the Inspector installs the meter on site and commissions and energizes the property.
   8. Meter Notice – After meter installation and energizing the property the Inspector fills out and submits a Meter Notice to Revenue for billing.
      
10. The Plaintiff must of course proof the essential elements of the tort of negligence against the Defendant. He must prove that the Defendant owes him a duty of care, that the Defendant breached that duty, and that he the Plaintiff suffered loss as a result.
    
11. There is no issue that the Defendant as the sole supplier of electricity to its customers including the Plaintiff, owes them a duty of care. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the Plaintiff suffered substantial loss. The controversy here is whether the loss suffered by the Plaintiff was caused by the Defendant’s breach of its duty of care to the Plaintiff.
    
12. I must say quite categorically that the dispute and the issues before the court can be resolved by simply finding out whether the procedure detailed above was followed when power was supplied to the Plaintiff’s property. In other words, the controversy can be resolved on the facts alone.
    
13. The pertinent questions to be asked are –
    
    1. Who did the actual wiring work to the property?
    2. Were a Notice of Intention to Commence Wiring Work and a Completion Notice lodged by a licenced electrical contractor with the Defendant in respect of the property?
    3. What was the maximum load for property and was such load calculated, and recommendation done for the appropriate meter?
    4. Was a separate Service Line erected from the LV line to the property?
    5. Did Michael Kiapin inspect the wiring work, and did he install the appropriate meter and subsequently commission and energize the property?
       
14. The answer to this question will determine where liability for the Plaintiff’s loss will ultimately fall.
    
15. It is accepted that a temporary Single-phase meter was supplied to the Plaintiff’s property specifically to power security lights and power tools during the construction period.
    
16. Michael Girai submitted the necessary Intention Notice and Completion Notice with the Defendant after which Michael Kapin installed a single-phase meter to a pole next to the perimeter fence and energized the installation.
    
17. So, who did the wiring work to the Plaintiff’s property and was he a licenced electrical contractor?
    
18. The Plaintiff deposed that the wiring work was done by a Warren Opa and Michael Girai. The latter, however, denied being involved in the wiring work to the property. His involvement was with the installation of the temporary power supply only which did not extend to the property itself.
    
19. On the balance of probabilities, I am not satisfied that Michael Girai did or partake in the wiring of the Plaintiff’s property. On the contrary, I have every reason to believe that Warren Opa, who according to Mr. Kiapini is not a licensed contractor with the Defendant, did the wiring work.
    
20. Were the necessary notices of Intention and Completion in respect of the property submitted to the Defendant, and was approval granted?
    
21. Despite the Plaintiff’s assertion to the contrary, I find that Mr. Warren Opa did not submit a Notice of Intention to Commence Wiring Work or a Notice of Completion of Wiring Work to the Defendant.
    
22. The result of this is that the necessary approval which would have escalated the next steps in the process was not given. I find this as a fact inspite of what the Plaintiff says in his affidavit evidence.
    
23. There is no evidence that the Plaintiff paid for the provision of a service line directly to the property itself and it naturally would follow that no such service line was erected from the LV lines to the property.
    
24. There being a critical break in the process and in the absence of any information on the maximum load or total allowable load (TAL) calculated by a licenced contractor in consultation with a PPL inspector according to the consumption demand, and hence the installation of the appropriate meter, I cannot see how Michael Kiapin would have circumvented the process and installed the right meter and thereafter commission and energize the property.
    
25. I do not believe that Michael Kiapin returned to the property a second time, did the inspection and energize the building as deposed by the Plaintiff. Michael Kiapin denies ever inspecting the building, installing a meter there and energizing it. I believe him.
    
26. Was a meter ever installed in the building itself? Who installed it? There is no evidence that a separate meter was installed in the property. Certainly not by Michael Kiapin or any other PPL Inspector for that matter. All indication points to someone else – most probably Warren Opa who was obviously engaged the Plaintiff, or it could have been the Plaintiff itself. Only the Plaintiff would know.
    
27. Furthermore, in all probabilities, the electricity to the property was supplied from the temporary single-phase meter which was installed to a pole within the yard.
    
28. The conclusion of the matter is inevitable. Mr. Michael Kiapin and hence the Defendant is not responsible for the Plaintiff’s loss. On the contrary, the Plaintiff’s loss was self-inflicted. He contributed solely to his loss by engaging an unlicenced electrical contractor and by allowing electricity from the temporary single-phase meter to be supplied to his property.
    
29. I therefore find the Defendant not liable. The claim should therefore be dismissed with costs to the Defendant to be taxed if not agreed upon.
    

Order

1. The Defendant is not liable for the Plaintiff’s loss.
2. The Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.
3. The Defendant shall pay the Defendant’s costs which, if not agreed, shall be taxed.
   

Berem Lawyers: Lawyers for the Plaintiff
Luke Vava Lawyers : Lawyers for the Defendant