Ndrihin v Kehou [2007] PGDC 57; DC573 (1 June 2007)

DC573

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE LOCAL LAND COURT OF JUSTICE]

LLC 28 OF 2007
BETWEEN

GABRIEL NDRIHIN
Complainant

AND

HAYEU KEHOU
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 on the land namely Sah-ye and Mondropolo in the Mundrau area.

The complainant nor the defendant have given any details on the content of the agreement nor there is a copy given to the Court as an evidence to prove that there is such agreement in place.

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

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

The affidavit of defendant clearly disputes complainant assertion 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 lands.

He did not consult both Mondreyih and Puhau-u clan members before entering into the agreement but the members did 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 acted contrary to what was agreed, then there would be a cause of action for breach.

In this case there is no breach of agreement either 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 asking for declaratory orders declaring the lease agreement signed between Logging Company to harvest the timber within Sah-ye and Mondropolo in Mundrau area is voidable and of no effect. I lack jurisdiction to entertain this proceeding. The reason is that I would be going into area where National Court has the jurisdiction to make such declaratory orders.

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

(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 views.

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

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

The above order sought by complainant, are important factors which are raised in the initial negotiation stages between the company and the landowners.

District Court lacks jurisdiction to make such order and I am of the view that this is an abuse of Court process.

Accordingly complaint is dismissed for no cause of action.

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

Applicants: In Person
Respondents: In Person