Kenuwai v Lua [2007] PGDC 146; DC768 (16 May 2007)

DC768

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE
SITTING AS VILLAGE COURT APPEAL COURT]

VC/App. DCCi 86 of 2008

BETWEEN

FRANCIS KENUWAI AND DAVID
Appellants/Defendants

AND

JAMES LUA AND ISMEL JAMES
Respondents/Plaintiffs

GOROKA: G VETUNAWA

2007: May 16

JUDGEMENT

G Vetunawa This is an appeal against the decision made by the Yauna Koko Village Court in Unggai District of Eastern Highlands Province. The respondents sued the appellants for insulting words and attempting to cut them with a bush knife. The Yauna Koko Village Court ordered them to pay compensation of K700.00 plus one live pig and Court fine of K150.00. They were given until 7th of February, 2008 to pay up. They were not satisfied with the Yauna Koko Village Court decision and here are their grounds of appeal.

1. The court did not consider our side of the story
   
2. Compensation ordered is too much and is not proportionate to the wrong and damage done by Israel when he had sex with the wife of David
   
3. The presiding Magistrates were related to James and Israel and therefore were biased in their decisions.
   

2. The appellants testified that they told the Village Court that Israel had sex with the wife of David and that’s why they got angry and threatened them and swore at them. Appellants claimed they were provoked by the wrong done to them by Israel. The provocation was under custom.

3. Ground One.

The appellants admitted to have threatened the respondents for the reason that Israel had sex with David’s wife. In their consideration the Village Court Magistrates did not take that into account. They did not weigh both sides of the story. The reason is related to ground three that the Magistrates were socially related and live together with the respondents. The social relationship of the Village Court Magistrate with James and Ismael made me to conclude that they did not consider the appellants’ side of the story and so were bias in their decision. Even if the Village Court Magistrates remained neutral in their minds there would still be reasonable grounds of suspicion because of their social relationship with James and Israel. The best option for them was they should have disqualified themselves from hearing the case. Therefore I hereby uphold ground one.

4. Ground Two.

Compensation ordered is too much and is not proportionate to the wrong and damage done by Israel when he had sex with the wife of David. It was brought to my attention by the appellants that the amount of K700.00 plus one live pig was the same amount the respondents paid for the adultery case between David and Israel. So the appellants thought that the order for the same amount they were ordered to pay was just a repayment of the amount paid by Israel for the adultery he committed. It is logical for me to conclude that the order for K700.00 plus one live pig was just a repayment of Israel’s money. It was a smart and corrupt way of getting his money back. I also conclude that the Village Court Magistrate were grossly corrupt and bias in how they dealt with this case. They were blind in weighing both sides of the case. They were only interested in supporting James and Israel. Therefore, I uphold this ground.

5. Ground Three.

The Presiding Village Court Magistrates are related to Israel and James and therefore were bias in their decisions. In Court both parties admitted that the Village Court Magistrates were related to Israel and James. They in fact live in the same hamlet and have close social relationship with each other. This ground is the underlying principle of grounds one and two. The Village Court Magistrates should have disqualified themselves from hearing the case. Instead they went ahead and abused their power for the sake of upholding social relationship with their relatives. This is not right and must not be practised by any court established by law. Under this ground it is evident that the Village Court was grossly biased against the appellants. The Village Court Magistrates also took part in eating the pig which they ordered the appellants to pay to the respondents. As it is, the total monetary value paid by the appellants to the respondents amounted to K1, 350.00. I also uphold ground three and I now make the following orders. The Village Court order is varied and appellants to pay only K500.00 to the respondents and the respondents are to refund K850.00 to Francis and David (Appellants) by the 30th of July 2008. Thus James and Israel (respondents) each to refund K425.00 in default Warrant of Arrest be issued against them.