Public Employers Association of Papua New Guinea v Mangapen [2005] PGDC 80; DC331 (20 May 2005)

DC331

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]

CASE NO 3351 OF 2003

BETWEEN

Public Employers Association of
Papua New Guinea
Complainant

V

Agnes Mangapen
Defendant

Port Moresby: Bidar, Pm
2005: 5th & 20th May.

District Court - Jurisdiction - Claim for recovery of property under the provisions of Summary Ejectment Act - Whether or not Court is vested with Jurisdiction - District Court Act (Ch. No. 40) ss Summary Ejectment Act ss

Cases Cited
There Are No Cases Cited In The Judgement.

Counsel
Mr. Amnol For Complainant..
Mr. Wohuinangu For Defendant.

RULING ON DEFENCE APPLICATION

20th May, 2005.

BIDAR PM: On 20th October 2003, the complainant (PEA) filed complaint with statement of claim against the defendant claiming inter alia, vacant possession of all land known as allotment 19 section 19, Gordons, National Capital District. This claim is brought under the provisions of Summary Ejectment Act, particularly s.6.

Complainant is the registered owner of land referred to above. On the 1st August 2001, the complainant had executed a contract of sale with one David Aisoli for purchase of the said property. Annexed to the affidavit of Didiulosi Boshen sworn on 17th August 2003 and filed on 20th October 2003 in copy of the contract of sale of the land.

Since the execution of contract of sale and payment of 10% deposit by the purchaser, complainant had been trying to get the defendant to vacate the property without avail.

This matter had been adjourned for various reasons from 30th October 2003, until it was mentioned before me on 13th April 2005.

On the 5th May 2005, when the matter returned to Court, Mr. Amnol appeared for complainant and Mr. Wohuinangu for defendant. This matter was ready to proceed to trial. Mr. Wohuinangu, raised the issue of jurisdiction of this Court. He made the following submissions. He submitted that the proceedings instituted by complainant involve purchase of a house. He submitted the defendant paid a deposit, her late husband former employee of complainant made arrangement to purchase the house.

He died without paying a deposit after the death of defendant’s husband, a deposit of K3,000.00 was paid by her husband’s brother. Deposit paid and accepted by complainant. He submits that, the issue is that of title which this Court lacks jurisdiction to determine pursuant to s.21(4) (f) District Court Act.

Alternatively he submits that the value of the house is K27,000.00 which is beyond the monetary jurisdiction of this Court and that Court should abstain from dealing with this matter.

Mr. Amnol says he is caught by surprise with the submission by Mr. Wohuinangu. He submits in response that, the complainant filed is under s.6 of the Summary Ejectment Act. The statement of claim seeks vacant possession of the property. He submits title is not an issue, as the complainant is the registered owner of the property and issue of title does not arise here. There is no claim as to the amount, although the statement claim seeks damages, the main claim is vacant possession of property, which is under the Summary Ejectment Act, this Court has jurisdiction to deal with.

Mr. Wohuinangu submits that it is clearly not on title but other issues involving law of contract, which may be proper matter for National Court to deal with.

I have heard submissions by both counsel and having perused the claim filed by the complainant first of all, when the proceedings first commenced, I find that no such submission on jurisdiction was made, as I find none on record. Secondly, the proceedings filed by complainant, clearly come under the provisions of Summary Ejectment Act, particularly s.6 and this Court is vested with jurisdiction under that legislation. I find further that neither is there an issue as to title nor any liquidated sum of money claimed in this proceedings.

With respect to principles involving law of contract, I find no legal basis, for this Court to abstain from dealing with the claim filed by the complainant.

In all the circumstances, I refuse the submission by defence counsel and rule that this Court has jurisdiction to deal with the claim with respect to costs, I order that costs of this proceedings be costs in the cause.

Mr. Amnol: Complainant.
Mr. Wohuinangu: Defendant.