Pakandi v Walep, Principal Hati College [2001] PGDC 40; DC434 (15 November 2001)

DC434

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]

CASE NO 30 OF 2000

BETWEEN

Sent Pakandi
Complainant

V

Victor Walep
Principal Hati College
First Defendant

Hati College
Second Defendant

Mt. Hagen: Appa, P.M.
2001: 23rd, October, 15th November

ASSESSMENT ON DAMAGES

The complainant sued the defendant for engaging Mt. Hagen based Policemen in uprooting and or destroying his coffee trees and other garden products which were grown on defendant (state) land.

The defendants did not dispute that complainant’s garden crops mentioned were pulled out or destroyed by Policeman but said such action was justified because those crops were illegally grown on state land and complainant ignored numerous warnings given to voluntarily pull out or remove his crops so he therefore acted to his own peril.

Mr. Ovia for the defendant had made verbal submission on mitigating of damages. The Department of Primary Industry (DPI) officials visited the scene and made reports on the damages and valued at K5, 814.00 in total for damages to crops. Assessment on initial labour cost was set at K3000.00 bringing the total to K8, 814.00. Mr. Ovia submitted that since complainant had used the land illegally, he should only be awarded with half of the claim on grounds of fairness. While on this note, if the defendants had taken out an eviction order and police acted on it, complainant would not have been entitled to any compensation. Since the police did not act on any court orders, there is this little room created for some compensation. However, I do agree with defence submission that complainant could not get full compensation because he cultivated the land illegally.

Although the complainant had acted to his own peril, one must not forget the fact, as he submitted, that he has to find new land and put in labour to start new coffee project to sustain his living.

I have decided to strike a balance in awarding a global figure of K4, 400.00 as considered being not too unreasonable in compensation.

I enter judgment for the complainant for a sum of K4, 400.00 plus 8% interest and nominal cost of the proceeding. The order is to be satisfied by the second defendant when funds become available

In Person: Complainant
Solicitor General: Defendant