Mausi v Agie [2007] PGDC 12; DC507 (9 March 2007)

DC507

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

DCCi 378 OF 2006

BETWEEN

KOFO MAUSI
Complainant

AND

MAKALAI AGIE
Defendant

Goroka: F MANUE
2006: December 7
2007: February 7, 21
2007: March 9

Cases Cited
Nil

References
Village Court Act, s 96 (3)
Village Court Act, s 97 (1)

Counsel
Complainant: In Person
Defendant: In Person

March 09 2007

REASONS FOR DECISION

F Manue: The Complainant is suing the defendant in that it is alleged the defendant on the 3rd day of August 2005, has taken possession of his bull, which is valued at about K1, 500.00.

2. He is seeking orders that the bull be returned to him with a K500.00 compensation and K400.00 costs.

3. The issue surrounding this dispute is over ownership of the bull, whether it is owned by the complainant or the defendant. Evidence suggests that the dispute commenced in around 3rd of August 2005, when the complainant went to the village cattle yard of one Sane. There he saw the said bull and figured out that it was his. The claim however came with resistance from the defendant.

4. From there the parties have gone to the Village Court two (2) times but each time the decisions were not accepted by either of them.

5. On the first instant, the parties lodged an appeal before the District Court which was then heard and referred to a joint Village Court sitting.

6. In the joint Village Court sitting it took recommendation from the Division of Primary Industry officers and ordered that the bull be divided equally between the parties in terms of eating it or sale with proceeds equally divided.

7. It would seem that the order is still current when the parties proceeded by summons, but not as an appeal to the District Court.

8. I will re-visit this issue in a later discussion.

9. To appreciate the circumstances under which the parties dispute, I will put into perspective the circumstances.

10. The parties and members of their village have a cattle yard and farmers who have cows or bulls stock their cattle in the one yard.

11. Both the parties do the same.

12. The complainant claims that his white bull was born in 2004. In the same year he attempted castration of it, but failed so it had grown with testicles intact.

13. The complainant says the defendant had his white bull sold to Mr. Benny Allan, the MP for Unggai Bena electorate.

14. He claims that his bull is younger then the defendant’s as it was born in 2004, while the defendants was born in 2003.

15. Both parties did not have any means of identifying their respective bulls. All they claim is based on the colour of the bull and the age of the bull.

16. I have been tasked in this proceedings to determine the ownership which I am able to after reviewing evidence but I reserve that conclusion and raise the issue of whether, after the parties had initiated proceedings in the Village Court, and had not completed its process, I have any jurisdiction in this matter.

17. Section 96 (3) of the Village Court Act raises the defence of res judicata.

It reads:-

“(3) Whether a matter has been dealt with by a Village Court a plea of autrefois acquit, autrefois convict or res judicata is available in a Court of summary jurisdiction in the same way as if the matter had been dealt with by another court of summary jurisdiction.

18. Neither of the parties raisrd or pleaded “res judicata”, probably because both were keen to have the matter resolved by the District Court.

19. If the defence was no raised, should I then proceed.

20. Section 97 (a1) of the Village Court Act allows a Village Court to transfer proceedings before it to other Courts which can appropriately deal with the proceedings.

21. In the instant case, there is no such transfer order in place.

22. Initially the parties conceded to the jurisdiction of the Village Court and took their complaint up to the Village Court which decided the matter. That decision went on appeal to the District Court which referred the matter to a joint sitting.

23. A Village Court joint sitting decided the matter and made an order. The order specifically divides the bull in issue between the parties. The Village Court order does not have the proceedings transferred to this Court.

24. In effect the orders is there for the parties to comply with.

25. This Court cannot interfere with that Village Court order, due to the fact that the same facts presented to it have been represented here.

26. The most appropriate option for the parties to have taken was either lodging an appeal of the joint Village Court decision or that they could have request that Court for a transfer proceeding to the District Court.

27. On these basis, I find that I cannot decide on a matter that has already been decided by another court, especially when the same facts are being presented. As is the saying goes of Res Judicata.

28. Without going into deciding the facts in issue, which I need not do given the reasons.

29. ORDER: Case be dismissed it is a Res Judicata issue.

Complainant: In Person
Defendant: In Person