Mangal v Kaiman [2005] PGDC 56; DC247 (4 May 2005)

DC247

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]

CASE NO 359 OF2004

BETWEEN

Michael Mangal
Complainant

V

Joseph Kaiman
First Defendant

Cecilia Keamau
Second Defendant

Managing Director
National Housing Corporation
Third Defendant

PORT MORESBY: BIDAR, PM
2005: 4th May.

District Court - Jurisdiction – Claim relate to land for which title is bona fide in dispute – District Court Act, s.21(4)(f).

Cases Cited
There are no cases cited in this Judgement

Counsel
N. Saroa for Defendants
Complainant appeared in Person

DECISION

4th June, 2005.

BIDAR PM: On 23rd March 2004 Complainant filed Summons upon Complaint against foe Defendants, claiming that he entered into tenancy agreement with the third defendant on a property at section 67 allotment 11, Horse Camp, Kila Kila, National Capital District.

In or around 2000 the first defendant claiming to be an inlaw and relative of complainant’s wife illegally moved in and had been occupying the complainant’s property at Section 67, allotment 11, Horse Camp, Kilakila. When requested to vacate property he refused to do so or pay rental of K150.00 per fortnight for four years, where complainant has a small trade store and a low cost residence.

On or about 22nd April 2004, the first and second defendant conspired with each other and entered into tenancy agreement, and such negotiation took place two days after the second defendant issued notice to complainant to pay outstanding rent of K500.00 for the same property for which the third defendant is the landlord. The third defendant did not put a stop to such an arrangement as tenancy was current with the complainant.

Counsel for the defendants Mr. Saroa applied for dismissal of proceedings, as the issue of title is bona fide in dispute. Pursuant to s.21 (4)(f) District Court Act, this Court lacks jurisdiction to deal with the dispute. If there is any action, complainant should take it against the National Housing Corporation for allowing new tenancy agreement in the face of existing one.

Complainant cannot claim rentals, the only person is National Housing Corporation, the landlord. The second defendant was a bona fide purchaser and National Housing Corporation being a landlord, has prerogative to revoke agreement and sell property to another person.

Having heard counsel and the complainant, I am satisfied the issue relates to title, and clearly, District Court lacks jurisdiction, when a title is bona fide in dispute. In all the circumstances, counsels submission are upheld. The proceedings are dismissed with costs to the second defendant.

In Person: Complainant
Mr. Nelson Saroa: Defendant