Morea v Robby [2007] PGDC 109; DC637 (19 December 2007)

DC637

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE
SITTING IN ITS GRADE FIVE CIVIL JURISDICTION]

GFCi 47 of 2007

BETWEEN

PAPAKU MOREA
Complainant

AND

GELE ROBBY
Defendant

Goroka: M Gauli
2007: December 14, 19

CIVIL - Defamation – Mediation at village – settlement at mediation – compensation accepted by a relative.

Cases Cited
Nil

References
Nil

Counsel
For the Complainant - In Person
For the Defendant - In Person

19 December 2007

DECISION OF COURT

M Gauli, PM: In this cause of action the complainant Mrs. Papaku Morea claims damages in the sum of K10, 000.00 for defamation. It is alleged that the defendant Mrs. Gele Robby made defamatory remarks against the complainant by calling her “sanguma” or witch on the 09 of October 2007 at the Kakaruk market in Goroka town before the crowd of some 400 to 500 people.

2. Brief Facts

That on the 09 October 2007 at the Kakaruk market a mediation was held between the complainant Papaku and the defendant and her younger sister. The complaint was that the defendant’s younger sister had affairs with the defendant’s husband. They claimed that the defendant made magic spells on the defendant’s younger sister to commit the affair.

3. During the medication the defendant Gele said in the presence of the crowed of people referring to the complainant the following defamatory statements:

“Tripela man dai ya igo long ass bilong yu” (meaning “the three men who died through you end up in your anus”)

4. These words are intended to mean that Papaku Morea is a sanguma or witch and that she was responsible for the death of the three men. The words spoken of the complainant are no doubt defamatory in meaning and that these were published in the presence of many hundreds of people.

5. The mediation was held at the Kakaruk Market hill. The mediator then proceeded to a house at the bettlenut market nearby to decide on the amount of compensation to be awarded. While the mediators proceeded down to the buai market house, Papaku and Gele fought. Gele then requested the mediators to refer the matter to the higher court, meaning the District Court. Gele was bleeding from the assault. She went down to her house and washed off the blood. She returned to the bettlenut house where the mediation pronounced their judgment for defendant to pay a sum of K600.00 compensation to Papaku Morea.

6. The defendant paid the K600.00 and her brother added another K400.00 that brings the total to K1, 000.00. At that time Papaku was not present, she was at the police station being questioned for assaulting Gele Robby. The mediators break up the K1, 000.00 and gave K500.00 to Magaret – one of the other complainant against defendant Gele Robby, while the other K500.00 for Papaku Morea was received by her brother Pius Fua on behalf of Papaku. The matter was then settled there and then.

7. The complainant Papaku Morea and her four witnesses including her brother Pius Fua gave evidence. Pius Fua admitted receiving the K500.00 compensation money on behalf of his sister Papaku Morea as she was at the Police Station. He said he received that money on her behalf to reach a peaceful settlement.

8. Having heard the evidence for the complainant I was convinced that even if the evidence for the defendant is called, it will make no difference to the complainant’s case. The defendant in cross-examining the complainant and her witnesses did put to them that she had paid K1, 000.00 as compensation already. This has not been disputed by complainant’s evidence. And so I considered that there was convincing evidence before me that the matter had been settled out of Court before the mediators at the community level. And I saw no point in calling for the defendant’s evidence.

9. The complainant had opted to take her complaint before the community mediators. Her complaint was attended to. She was awarded compensation and the defendant has paid the compensation. The payment was received by Pius Fua on behalf of the complainant. Although Papaku Morea was not present to receive the compensation, the fact that the payment was accepted and received by her blood brother in my view was customarily acceptable. I said that this was customarily accepted because customarily that compensation would have to be shared amongst the relatives including the brothers and others. Thus acceptance of compensation by the complainant’s relative or a blood brother for that matter settled the matter there and then. As such I consider that it will be injust to file proceedings afresh in the District Court seeking for higher amount of compensation over the same cause of action that had already been settled out of Court.

10. The orders made by the mediators may be questionable. Normally the mediators could not award compensation. Their primary role is to coach the disputing parties to reach a compromise to settle their dispute. If the parties cannot settle at the mediation then the matter is referred to Court. In the present case the award ordered by the mediators is to be taken as making a proposal put to the parties. And if the parties agreed to that proposal, that settles the whole matter. In this case the defendant accepted the proposal and she paid the amount proposed by the mediators. The complainant was not present in person to accept or refuse the offer made. But in her absence, her brother accepted the payment. In my view the acceptance by the complainant’s blood brother in the absence of the complainant settles the whole matter. Thus no further proceedings be instituted against the defendant.

11. For the reasons given above, I made an order that this cause of action be dismissed against the defendant.

For the Complainant - In Person
For the Defendant - In Person