Warigi v Nenizo [2008] PGDC 103; DC805 (30 June 2008)

DC 805

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
IN THE LOCAL LAND COURT
HELD AT GOROKA
EASTERN HIGHLANDS PROVINCE

LLC No. 024 of 2008

Land Disputes Settlement Act, Chapter 45

IN THE MATTER OF GOHEKOHETO (MULILO KALALO) CUSTOMARY LAND DISPUTE

BETWEEN

JIMMY WARIGI
TERRY WARIGI
GUHI KOKO
GOPISIE WARIGI
Applicants

AND

HENRY NENIZO
First Defendant

AND

RAYMOND MUSUVE

Second Defendant

Goroka: M. IPANG
Local Land Court Magistrate

2008: June 25 & 30

Cases Cited:

Nil

Spokesperson:

Applicants: Jimmy Warigi,
First Respondent: Henry Nenizo appears in person
Second Respondent: Raymond Musuve appears in person

RULING

M IPANG LLCM: Applicant Jimmy Warigi filed an application by way of Notice of Motion seeking for the following orders:- 1. that leave be granted for himself and Napave Guhikoko, Terry Warigi, Guhi Koko and Gopisie Warigi to be party to the proceeding in the land dispute between Henry Nenizo and Raymond Nusuve over a portion of land at Faniufa known as Gohekoheto (Mulilo Kalalo). The applicants submitted that they being the customary landowners of the named disputed land, were not aware of the land dispute and the court proceedings until recently; and 2. secondly, they seek to have the Temporary Order of 09th of April 2008 (Ex-parte) entered against Napave Guhikoko and his family and their settlers to be evicted from the disputed land be set aside pending full dispensation of the dispute.

2. The applicants in support of their application relied on the affidavit of one Jimmy Warigi sworn on the 2nd of June 2008 and filed on the 05th of June 2008. In this affidavit, the applicant Jimmy Warigi deposed off the following facts, I consider of relevance:

1. Firstly, I come from the Gehamoyufa Clan of Sipiga Village and that I am one of the heirs to the portion of customary land at Faniufa, known as Gohekoheto (or Mulilo Kalalo), which is now the subject of a dispute between Messrs Henry Nenizo and Raymond Musuve.
   
2. The dispute of the said portion of land, as I now realized, is now before the Goroka Land Court.
   
3. Myself or any of my family members or clansmen were not aware of such disputes involving our land by outside parties who have no ownership or inheriting rights over our land. It was only on and after the 22nd of April 2008 when we were served with a Temporary Order, calling for our eviction from our very own land, that we were surprised in to coming to court with own application to be party to the land dispute proceeding.
   
4. The Temporary Order made on the 09th of April 2008 was made ex-parte and that we the legitimate Customary Landowners were not aware of such court proceedings regarding a dispute of the said land. We were only surprised when were served with a copy of the Temporary Order on the 22nd of April 2008.
   
5. Had I or any of my relatives had known earlier that there was a dispute on the portion of the said land between the two gentlemen, my relatives and clansmen would have vigorously argued and disputed such disputes as to the legitimacy and rightful landownership of the subject land.
   
6. This did not happen and we were caught off guarded when upon being served with Temporary Order. In fact, we were and are furious upon hearing that two non-landowners of the land in issue have been disputing the said land without our very knowledge.
   
7. How can an alien or aliens obtain a Court Order to evict me and other fellow legitimate landowners from our own land? This is absurd and total craziness by Messrs Henry Nenizo and Raymond Musuve.
   
8. On behalf of my father’s brother and fellow clansmen, we feel that the court should look at the wider and broader perspective of this very land issue, because as with the issue of land, it is always a matter of tribal wars and of course deaths, injuries and huge property losses.
   
9. We have every proof to attest that we are the legitimate customary landowners of the current portion of land in dispute and not the two gentlemen.
   

3. These are the grounds upon which the applicants relied to be joined as a party to contest the ownership of Gohekoheto (Mulilo Kalalo) land. The issue that needs to be determined is not one of interest in land but one of reasonable excuse as to why applicants did not register their interest at the initial mediation process at District level.

4. Both Respondents argued that it took them 12 – 13 years for the dispute to reach the level of Local Land Court. During this time, they argued, they have not seen or heard applicants interested in registering the interests and fighting ownership of the said land under the processes as allowed by Land Disputes Settlement Act, Chapter 45.

5. I do agree with the argument raised by both respondents. Firstly, this land is located just few metres at the outskirt of Goroka Town. Applicants are local residents residing on the said land so as both respondents who are local residents. Land is a very sensitive issue
and for that matter any dealings with land is never a secret affair. I find it unbelievable for applicants not to have any clue until upon receipt of Temporary Order on the 22nd of April 2008.

6. For 12 – 13 years when the land dispute went through the established processes applicants did not do anything. When a “Notice to Quit” was issued under the Land Act, 1996 and spearheaded by District Officer Mr. Benson Imara and Goroka Police to evict applicants from the disputed land they did nothing. Only after they received Temporary Order they wanted to be joined as a party to contest the ownership of the disputed land.

7. For me to grant applicants application and joined them as a party would create an injustice or unfairness to both Respondents. Both Respondents have gone through the processes established under the Land Disputes Settlement Act, Chapter 45 which applicants did not. I will not allow applicants to by-pass land mediation process established by Land Disputes Settlement Act, Chapter 45 and be included as a party in the Local Land Court. This will create a very bad precedent and more so open “flood gate” for more disputing parties to register their interests thus complicating and abusing the process.

8. I, therefore refuse the application by the applicants. I will allow applicants to be a party to this dispute only upon the National Court Order. Parties to meet its own costs. Land dispute between both Respondent is set for hearing on the 19th of August 2008 at 10:00 am.

Applicants : Jimmy Warigi in person
First Respondent : Henry Neniso in person
Second Respondent: Raymond Musuve in person