Lorengau Urban LLG v Gaidowa [2007] PGDC 56; DC577 (1 June 2007)

DC577

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE LOCAL LAND COURT OF JUSTICE]
LLC 70 OF 2007

BETWEEN

LORENGAU URBAN LLG
Complainant

AND

MARY GAIDOWA
Defendant

Lorengau: G. Madu
2007: 01 June

G. Madu PM : The complainant alleges that the agreement signed by Hayeu Kehou, the defendant and the Logging Company to exploit timber was done without consulting the landowners and for this reason the agreement be nullified.

The brief facts to the case is that there is a lease agreement signed with the Logging Company to exploit timber under the land namely Sah-ye and Mondropolo in the Mundrau area.

The complainant nor the defendant have given any details or the consent of the agreement nor there is a copy given to the Court as an annexure to prove that there is such agreement.

In this proceeding there is a jurisdictional issue whether the District Court has the power to nullify the agreement entered into by defendant representing the resource owner and the company whether the Forestry Resources are involved?

I find that since the complainant is challenging the status of the defendant who entered into the agreement and therefore this reasons it would be proper for both parties to provide affidavit from the clan member.

The affidavit of defendant clearly disputes complainant operation that he is the member of Lompedin and Mondreyih clan and claiming to be leader of both Mondreyih and Puhau-u clans.

In his affidavit he claims that he has the vested right over the usage and control over both land.

He did not consulted both Mondreyih and Puhau-u clan members before entering into the agreement and that the members and consented.

The defendant states that the complainant is not a party to this agreement because he is not the member of both Mondreyih and Puhau-u clan.

In this case if either party who entered into an agreement, in the performance of that agreement ended constraining to what was agreed, then there would be a cause of action for breach.

In this case there is no breach entered by the defendant or the two (2) clans namely Mondreyih and Puhau-u clan.

For the above reason, I rule that there is no cause of action. Further in the summons the complainant is also declaratory orders to declare that the lease agreement signed between Logging Company to harvest the timber within Sah-ye and Mondropolo in Mundrau area be declared, could not be entertained. The reason is that I would be going into area where National Court has the jurisdiction to make declaratory orders.

The following orders that the complainant is seeking in the complaint as:-

(1) The defendant conduct a round table meeting with his clan members,the traditional owner by acquisition and people earning their living along the Ngersapert river for their means.

(2) That the defendant demonstrate a copy of a study on the Impact of the Environment and its social issues of the project to the complainant.

(3) The defendant demonstrates a copy of a compensation package for loss of income and the reduction of food consumption to the complainant forthwith.

And matters to be discussed between the company and landowners and are information given during the negotiation.

District Court entered jurisdiction to make such order and is of the view that there is an abuse of Court process.

Complaint dismissed for no cause of action.

------------------------------------------

Applicants: In Person
Respondents: In Person