N11743

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

WS NO. 123 OF 2025 (IECMS-CC4)

BETWEEN:
WENDY MINA
Plaintiff

AND:
RONALD MEKETA
First Defendant

AND:
KINA SECURITIES LIMITED TRADING AS KINA BANK
Second Defendant

AND:
PNG HOME FINANCE LIMITED
Third Defendant

AND:
KELLY NGASA
Fourth Defendant

AND:
VETUBU KILA
Fifth Defendant

AND:
DWYGHT ROBINSON
Sixth Defendant

AND:
JARET MOLA
Seventh Defendant

WAIGANI: COATES J
5 MARCH 2026

MATTER SET FOR TRIAL – amended writ filed – motions to dismiss case – self-represented litigant – adjournment with case management orders made.

Counsel

W Mina, the plaintiff, in person
S Noel, for first defendant
N Ako, for second, third, fifth, sixth & seventh defendants
J Karenge, for fourth defendant 

DECISION
1.      COATES J: Before the Court is a fraud case.

2.   The plaintiff claims she has been fraudulently deprived of her house because of the fraudulent collusions and actions of some of the defendants.

3.   She purchased the house in Port Moresby some years ago and the title was registered in her name.

4. Title then passed to the first defendant on 5 December 2024.

5.The plaintiff claims that she only became aware of this in 2025, after the bank exercised its power of sale due to a default by the plaintiff in payment of her mortgage.

6.The default is not challenged by the plaintiff.

7.Before the Court are Notices of Motion from various defendants seeking that the matter be dismissed on the grounds that there is no case to answer and that it is time barred.

8.The plaintiff has an initial problem in this case in that she has not given an affidavit of evidence swearing to the claims she makes in her amended Writ of Summons and statement of claim.

9.There may also be technical considerations such as failing to seek leave to amend the Writ and statement of claim, however I am aware that the plaintiff appears before the court self-represented.

10.I am also aware that she appeared to be represented previously and that no Notice of Ceasing to Act has been filed by her representative. That is just rudeness to the court on the representative’s part; however, the plaintiff should not be blamed for that.

11.If she was represented such was very poor representation because supporting any claim requires sworn evidence as a basic principle of law, otherwise there is no case for another party to answer.

12.Just to explain to the plaintiff what evidence is, I turn to Moseley and Whitley's law dictionary 11th addition which states evidence is “that which, in a Court of Justice, makes clear, or ascertains the truth of, the very fact or point in issue, either on one side or on the other. Any matter, lawfully deposed to on oath or affirmation, which contributes (however slightly) to the elucidation of any question at issue in a court of justice, is said to be evidence. Evidence is either written or parol; (that is, spoken by word); written evidence consists of records, deeds, affidavits, or other writings: parol or oral evidence consists of witnesses personally appearing in court, and in general swearing to the truth of what they depose. Evidence maybe primary, i.e., best evidence, or secondary; direct, circumstantial, or hearsay; real or intrinsic”. 

13.Although hearsay evidence is mentioned in that definition, I need to point out that there are very strict rules on admission of hearsay evidence, or rather non-admission of hearsay evidence, the fine details of which I do not have to spell out here.

14.I could dismiss this case now based on the fact that no evidence is filed to support it, and had Mrs Mina, the plaintiff, been represented, I would have done so.

15.However, she is not represented now and she sought an adjournment to construct an affidavit and seek legal advice.

16. I am very well aware of the shortcomings of the case at present and I am aware of the fact that she has not served the State when she should have, and that there are Notices of Motion to say she is out of time.

17.I make no decision on whether she is out of time at present, because she is self-represented and she is not a lawyer. It is of fundamental importance that the courts be seen to treat all parties fairly and justly

18.Non-lawyers, although they are expected to know the law when presenting a case, usually cannot possibly understand the law.

19. I am also aware that Ms Mina clearly made a submission that she only discovered the alleged fraud last year and so that time should not run as claimed by the defendants.

20.A decision on time is a legal as well as a factual matter and the court would be doing a disservice to an unrepresented litigant if it refused such an adjournment so that she could file material and take legal advice.

21.Having said that, the Court is well aware that the first defendant, on the face of the title, owns the property and is being deprived of the use of the property and is paying for his lawyer.

22.The court is balancing these issues and in so balancing it is my decision at this stage of the proceeding to grant the adjournment, order Ms Mina to file and serve material and to and to serve the State.

23.I also urge Ms Mina to take legal advice on the issue of time – because it may be fatal to her case.

24.I will adjourn the Notices of Motion to the next hearing.

ORDERS
1)	The Plaintiff is given 21 days to file and serve an affidavit in support of her Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim. 

2)	The Plaintiff shall, within 28 days, serve her material on the Office of the Solicitor General, to ensure that the Independent State of Papua New Guinea is named as a party pursuant to Section 5 of the Claims By and Against the State Act 1996. 

3)	All costs are reserved. 

4)	All notices of motion are adjourned until the next return of this matter.

5)	This matter will return on a date and time to be advised.

Judgment accordingly
________________________________________________________________
Lawyers for the first defendant: Napo Lawyers
Lawyers for the second, third, fifth, sixth & seventh defendants: O’Briens Lawyers
Lawyer for the fourth defendant: Solicitor-General