Lasin v Semoso [2007] PGDC 158; DC753 (20 September 2007)

DC753

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

CL 71 of 2007

BETWEEN

COLLIN LASIN
Complainant

AND

MARTIN SEMOSO
First Defendant

AND

MICHAEL SAHOTO
Second Defendant

Buka: B Tasikul, SM

2007: September 20

Cases Cited

Nil

Reference

District Courts Act, s. 22

Counsel

For the Complainant - In Person
For the Defendants - In Persons

20 September 2007

JUDGMENT

B Tasikul, SM: This complaint came before me by way of summons upon complaint in which the complainant is seeking orders restraining the defendants from interfering with a coconut plantation. This complaint is laid under section 22 of the District Court Act which has its jurisdiction to exercise.

2. The facts of this matter are as follows: The plantation was planted by a Leo Kapesa who claims to be the owner of the property, way back in the 1970s. During the early years, Leo Kapesa and the defendants who are his uncles enjoyed harvesting the copra on this plantation without any dispute. However, not to long a distant back, Leo Kapesa moved to his wife’s village where he is now living. He complained of not been given any share of harvest of the plantation by his uncles so he decided to sell the plantation to the complainant.

3. However, before he did that, he divided the plantation in halves, one (1) half to his uncles and the other half he sold to the complainant. However, he testified that before he sold it to the complainant, he asked his uncles if they could buy it from him. They failed to response so he decided to sell it to the complainant.

4. The complainant paid K2724.00 to the owner of the plantation. However, just after the first part payment was made, the defendants send a letter to the complainant advising her not to receive anymore payment until the matter was discussed by the parties.

5. The matter was referred to the village court in which a settlement order was entered into by the parties. The settlement order reads:

Tupela party, tok orait wantaim olosem ologeta block kokonas bilong Papa Kapesa na pikinini bilong em Clarence Lolonga imas stop noken wok copra long en. Ol parties imas askim Leo Kapesa na Clarence pastaim bihain wokim copra today na igo, igo. Dated 10 October 2006.

6. After this village court settlement order was issued, the parties failed, came back together to discuss the issue of the plantation. When nothing eventuated the complainant than, gave final payment to Leo Kapesa.

7. The reason why the defendants objected to the sale of this plantation is because they claim the plantation belongs to their family, which includes Kapesa himself.

8. From the evidence adduced before me, I find that there was no land issues raised when the complainant made payment to Leo Kapesa. The only reason is they wanted the plantation to remain with their family. There is no doubt Leo Kapesa planted this plantation which of course was assisted by his sisters and relatives back in the 1970s.

9. However, Leo Kapesa as an old man saw that his uncles were not sharing the money with him after harvesting the copra from the plantation. Because he was getting old, the only option he had in mind was to benefit first from his hard work before he died.

10. His uncles failed to address his concern and he decided to divide the plantation. He gave his uncles half of the plantation and he sold the other portion to the complainant. I find that there is nothing wrong with his action. If there was any land issues raised regarding the plantation, then it would be a different matter.

11. The land included in the plantation is situated in a customary land. I also note that the complainant is a member of the clan lineage who owned the land where the plantation is situated. Because there is no dispute regarding the land, I find that there was a proper contract of sale of the plantation between the complainant and Leo Kapesa.

12. I therefore, hereby grant and issue the following orders:

1. That the defendants Michael Semoso, Michael Sahoto, their relative or agents and any other persons be restrained from interfering with the plantation that was sold to Collin Lasin and family by Leo Kapesa.

2. This order does not affect the portion which is owned by the defendants and their relatives.

3. In the event this order is breached, criminal proceeding will be laid against those concerned.

For the Complainant - In Person
For the Defendants - In Persons