N11715

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

WS NO. 305 OF 2024

THERESIA SUWARUA
Plaintiff

V

JAMES KIRKMAN- Chairman, Honde Laulimi Incorporated Land Group
First Defendant

META GAINI- Vice Chairman, Maulimi Incorporated Land Group
Second Defendant

EDWARD PHILIP MAUTU- Chairman, Malum Incorporated Land Group
Third Defendant

HONDE LAULIMI INCORPORATED LAND GROUP
Fourth Defendant

KIMBE: ANDELMAN J
28 NOVEMBER 2025; 13 FEBRUARY 2026

DAMAGES – assessment – after entry of default judgement – breach of oral contract – money lent

The plaintiff entered into three contracts with the first and second defendants. The first contract was in March 2008 for a loan of K20,000, the second was in June 2020 for a loan of K5,000 and the third was in July 2022 for a loan of K10,000. The agreement was that 50% interest would be charged on the loans. The defendants failed to file defences within time and default judgment on liability was entered against them on 20 November 2025. 

Held:

(1)	The Court awarded K70,000 for outstanding debt.
(2)	General damages of K5,000.
(3)	Interest calculated at the rate of 8% per annum pursuant to Judicial Proceedings (Interest on Debts and Damages) Act 2015 from the filling of the proceeding until 28 November 2025.
(4)	The defendants pay plaintiffs’ costs of the proceedings on a party-party basis which shall be taxed if not agreed.

Cases Cited
 
Thomas Wapi v Sergeant Koga Ialy (2014) SC1370
William Mel v Coleman Pakalia & Ors (2005) SC790

Counsel

Mr B Takua, for the plaintiff
Ms J Waiwai, for the first and fourth defendants 

1.	ANDELMAN J: This is a decision on assessment of damages for breach of contracts. On 20 November 2025 this court entered default judgement in respect of the matters pleaded in the plaintiff’s amended writ of summons and statement of claim filed on 10 August 2025.

2.	The plaintiff made two claims:
a.	Outstanding debt of K70,000
b.	General damages of K5,000

Pleadings

3.	The plaintiff pleaded the following matters in the amended statement of claim:
a.	She was approached by Philip Matu, now deceased who held the office of the Chairman of the Honde Laulimi Incorporated Land Group (ILG), Meta Gaini the Vice Chairman of the ILG, Edward Philip Matu, Chairman of the Malum Incorporated Land Group and two other men who were board members of the ILG on behalf of the ILG.
b.	She agreed to lend money to the ILG. The money was to be repaid with 50% interest as soon as the money was available in the ILG bank account from royalty payments.
c.	She gave K20,000 to the second and the third defendant in 2018 for ILG registration and other ILG needs;
d.	She gave K5,000 to Patrick Luvi in 2021 for ILG needs;
e.	She gave Augustine Gula, member of the ILG’s dispute settlement committee K10,000 for legal costs and other needs.
f.	As a result of constant follow ups and broken promises to settle the debt the plaintiff has suffered ‘immensely from emotional distress and anxiety’.

The Evidence

4.	The plaintiff relied on three affidavits sworn by herself and an affidavit of the second defendant. The defendant relied on the affidavit of the first defendant. 

5.	The plaintiff’s evidence provides a more accurate account of the dates on which the money was lent to the defendants at [5] of Exhibit P4:

a.	March 2018
b.	June 2020
c.	July 2022

6.	The plaintiff’s evidence in regard to the formation and terms of the contract was:
[13] The agreement was authorised by resolution of the members of the controlling body of the Honde Laulimi ILG who were all present when I lent the monies to them. 
[14] The monies were borrowed on different occasions from 2018 to 2022 and the accumulated sum were repayable at once through a one-off payment by Honde Laulimi ILG upon receipt of funds in the form of royalties.
[16] The Honde Laulimi ILG had received all its royalty and other payments but did not repay my monies borrowed with the 50% interest promised in breach of the verbal agreements.
7.	The evidence in regard to general damages was contained in Exhibit P4 in paragraphs [17] – [21]:
I made countless follow-ups at the office of the chairman of the Honde Laulimi ILG since 2018 to date only to be given empty promises for the repayment and told to wait further
With the assistance of Kimbe police several mediations were conducted between myself and the defendants from other board members of Honde Laulimi ILG where they would undertake to settle the debt but to no avail with empty promises.
Due to the failures, false undertakings, ignorant and negligent behaviour of the defendants especially by the board members of Honde Laulimi ILG for a very long to settle their debt owed to me I had suffered immensely from emotional distress anxiety and psychological anguish … have been kept in limbo and deprived of the use of my monies for very long time.
My plans to use the monies for other purposes were shattered I and my family suffered as we were deprived of my monies for far too long with false promises to settle or repaid by the defendants.
8.	James Kirkman the current Chairman of the Honde Laulimi ILG gave evidence that:

a.	Patrick Luvi is not associated with Honde Laulimi ILG, he is the Chairman of Kisang ILG;
b.	Meta Gaini is not associated with Honde Laulimi ILG, he is the Chairman of Malum ILG;
c.	Edward Philip Mautu is not associated with Honde Laulimi ILG, he is the Deputy Chairman of Malum ILG; and
d.	Augustine Bula is associated with Honde Laulimi ILG, he is a member of the Dispute Settlement Authority but he is not authorised to borrow money on behalf of the ILG.

9.	Mr Kirkman considered that any claim is not against his ILG but that of the Malum ILG and that the debt stems back to 2018 and is time barred.

10.	The second defendant’s evidence was that all of the defendants were members of the ILG and that members of the Malum clan and the Kisang clan are part of the ILG and that Kisang ILG and Malum ILG are subsets of the Honde Laulimi ILG.

11.	 At paragraphs 14 to 23 he explained:
[14] On or around 2018 due to the large number of the ILG members from the various clans for benefit sharing convenience, Honde Laulimi ILG decided to facilitate registration of the various subordinate ILG's for each of the respective clans that make up Honde Laulimi ILG.

[15] The former chairman late Philip Mautu led the initiation with his then board members of the Honde Laulimi ILG.
[16] Each of the respective clans of Honde Laulimi ILG were required to register their own clan ILG's.
[17] Since Honde Laulimi ILG was yet to receive its royalty payments, the ILG board led by late Phillip Mautu authorized us to source funds from elsewhere to meet the costs and facilitate the registration of the subordinate clan ILG.
[18] The Honde Laulimi ILG board then led by late Phillip Mautu witnessed and approved the funds we borrowed from the plaintiff in this case for purpose of registering the sub-clan ILG's.
[19] The former Honde Laulimi ILG Chairman late Phillip Mautu and his board members advised the plaintiff in person that Honde Laulimi ILG would repay all her monies borrowed with interest when the ILG would receive its royalty payments which the ILG was awaiting at the time.
[20] Upon the passing of former chairman late Philip Mautu the then vice chairman Joe Vava acted in the chairman position until he passed on in 2021.
[21] From then on there were disruptions on the operations of Honde Laulimi ILG due to court proceedings which arose from disputes relation election of the ILG board members. Hence funds were freezed in the ILG bank accounts by orders of the court pending finality of the court proceedings.
[22] Sometimes in 2022 an election was held following court orders and directions in which the current chairman James Kirkman was elected with the rest of the current board members of Honde Laulimi ILG who now seem to deny this claim by the plaintiff.
[23] Honde Laulimi ILG authorized these borrowings for its own purposes and hence must take ownership and repay. The current board members cannot deny responsibility over the initiations by the previous IG board

Submissions

12.	The plaintiff submitted that the court should not revisit the liability decision and that sufficient and credible evidence is before the court to prove that there was a contract between the plaintiff and the fourth defendant for the outstanding debts and contract interest as well as for general damages for stress and anxiety.
13.	The first and the fourth defendant submitted that there was no evidence of liability and that no damages should be awarded.

Consideration
14.	In William Mel v Coleman Pakalia & Ors (2005) SC790 Los, Jalina and Cannings JJ stated that a trial judge assessing damages following default judgement should:

make a cursory inquiry so as to be satisfied that the facts and the cause of action are pleaded with sufficient clarity;

 if it is reasonably clear what the facts and cause of action are, liability should be regarded as proven;

only if the facts or the cause of action pleaded do not make sense or would make an assessment of damages a futile exercise should the judge inquire further and revisit the issue of liability.

15.	In Thomas Wapi v Sergeant Koga Ialy (2014) SC1370 Batari, Hartshorn and Sawong JJ stated at [12] that:
... we are of the view that where a judgment, be it default or otherwise, has been entered, and a primary judge determines, after concluding a hearing to assess damages, that the plaintiff has not sufficiently proved his loss or that no cause of action is disclosed in the statement of claim or that the pleadings are defective or that the claim is frivolous or vexatious or is an abuse of process, he is entitled to refuse to make an award of damages. This is in accord with him being able to consider the question of liability for the damages claimed. To dismiss the entire proceeding however, in the absence of any application to set aside, as in this case, the effect of which is to review the decision to enter judgment and to set such judgment aside, is in our respectful view, to fall into error.

16.	I now apply these authorities to the facts before me.

17.	I am satisfied that the plaintiff has pleaded and proved that she entered into contracts with Mr Luvi and others who represented to her that they were acting on behalf of the fourth defendant. The first contract was made sometime in March 2018 for the loan of money however the repayment was not required until after the loan of the last amount in July 2022, that is that the ‘accumulated sum were repayable at once through a one off payment upon receipt of funds to the Honde Laulimi ILG in the form of royalties [14] Exhibit P4.

18.	As such, the whole claim is not out of time pursuant to  s16(1)(a) of the Frauds and Limitations Act 1988 as the claim is brought within six years of the date on which the cause of action accrued.

19.	I accept the plaintiff’s pleadings and evidence that she had experienced significant distress and anxiety as a result of having her money withheld from her for a significant period of time and that she had to spend a significant period of time chasing up the money and was misled by the defendants that the  money would be repaid. I consider a grant of K5,000 to be a reasonable amount in these circumstances.

Orders

1.	The fourth defendant shall pay the plaintiff the outstanding debt of K70,000.
2.	The fourth defendant shall pay the plaintiff K5,000 as general damages.
3.	The fourth defendant shall pay interest at 8% from the date the proceedings commenced to 28 November 2025.
4.	The fourth defendant shall pay the plaintiff’s legal costs as agreed or assessed.
________________________________________________________________
Lawyers for the plaintiff: Takua Lawyers
Lawyers for the first respondent and the fourth respondent: Emam Lawyers