Police v Lapasuma [2003] PGDC 26; DC313 (14 February 2002)

DC313

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]

CASE NO 912 ,917, 976 OF 2002

BETWEEN

Police
Complainant

V

Rumu Lapasuma
First Defendant

Waigi Rumu
Second Defendant

Mt Hagen : Appa – Pm
2003: 14th February

Prosecutor: Sgt. Konga

Sentencing

The above defendants stood charged for:-

1. Defendant Rumu Lapasuma

(a) Failing to comply with a Temporary Order under Section 30 (1) of the Land Dispute Settlement Act.

(b) Damaging property, a newly built house belonging to one Timothy Lela under Section 47 (I) Summary Offence Act.

2. Defendant Waigi Rumu damaging of same property under Section 47 (1) SOA.

Defendant one conditionally admitted both charges so trial was conducted for justification. Second defendant freely admitted the charge and gave his explanation.

At the end of the trial both defendants were found guilty. In their allocutus both said the house they pulled down was built on their land so a Land Mediator was called for further information.

It was found that both offences were committed over the land dispute. The complainant said in his affidavit that in 1992 there was a land mediation took place and the disputed land was declared to be his fore father and father’s land as against all others. Following that declaration he built his house on the land but the defendant disputed and pulled down that house and they built their house on the same land. Defendants claimed the land to be theirs. The land Mediator Napa Nambo who took part in the 1992 mediation said the land was awarded to the complainant Timothy Lela. On 5th November 2002 a Temporary Order was issued to defendant Rumu Lapasua and others stopping them from entering the land or to build houses or make new gardens, defendant Rumu admitted the existence of the Temporary order.

I have found from copy of the 1992 Mediation record produced by prosecution that the dispute was between Timothy Lela and his father Rumi versus Kerem Ruri and Minawa Rambale in which the land was awarded to the Lela family. The two defendants were not a party in that case. However they were bound by the Temporary Order issued against them. In both cases, nothing was done to set aside those orders. It is to be noted that the order of 1992 mediation was not approved by the Local Land Court. That is a matter for the complainant to apply for it. It is also to be mentioned that if the issue and existence of the Temporary order causes hardships to the defendants, they are at liberty to apply to the Local Land Court for variation. Until that was done, its still enforceable.

There was a further discovery made that if the prosecution was relying on and referring to the Temporary Order issued on 5/11/02 that was well after the laying of charge under section 30 against defendant Rumu. The information alleged that the offence was committed on 25th October 2002 which means that there was no Temporary Order in place until 5/11/02.

In relation to the damage charges, it was found that the defendants took the law into their own hands. They did not exhaust the proper procedures in relation to land matters. To make it worst, after pulling down the complainant’s house, they built their house instead which was an aggravating conduct.

After considering all the above factors and submissions made on penalty, I have decided to impose a suspended sentences on both defendants due to the extenuating circumstances under which the offences were committed.

Both defendants are convicted for the respective charges and sentenced to three months imprisonment but suspended for same period and are placed on good behaviour. Both defendants are ordered to comply with the Temporary Order of 5/11/02. They are not to make new gardens or build new houses until the land dispute was properly resolved in the court of law. The defendants bail moneys are to be refunded after the three months suspended period, starting from today 14/02/2003.

On damages to the property, complainant estimated the cost of the house at K700.00. The law section 47 (2) calls for damages or compensation. Since it was only an estimate and for the fact that defendants were found guilty of the offence, the owners of the damaged property were entitled to compensation.

It is therefore ordered that each defendant pays the complainant K200.00 each, either in cash or in kind.

Dated this 14th day of February 2003 at Mount Hagen.
........................
MR. RAPHAEL APPA
By the Court