Moke v Wamane [2009] PGDC 9; DC907 (17 February 2009)

DC907

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

DC 254 - 255 of 2008

BETWEEN

WILLIAM MOKE for SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST
Plaintiff

AND

JOHN WAMANE
1ST Defendant

OLA WAMANE
2ND Defendant

ALOIS KUNGAMERE, WILFRED KUNAMERE, FRANCIS KUNGAMER & OTHERS
3RD Defendants

SAVE MISSION INC.
4TH Defendant

Wewak: D Susame
2009: 17 February

DECISION

D Susame: The plaintiff has filed two separate cases. The cases were first registered in September 2008 and came before this Court on 17 October 2008. Directional Orders were then issued for plaintiff to file further particulars to allow the defendant to file particulars of their defence. After several adjournments filing of documents was completed on 19 January 2009. Both cases were again adjourned to 17 February 2009 to allow the Court to study the files before the actual hearing of the cases. This is the decision of the Court.

2. In both cases the plaintiff alleges that the first, second and fourth defendants who are no longer members of the Seventh Day Adventist Mission are illegally occupying two different properties that belong to SDA Church.

3. One property is located at portion 238c of JEKWARAMBA Land under a purchase agreement between one specific family groups of Saure Village. The other property is located at MOROLONG Land under a Land Usage Agreement between yet another family group of Saure Village.

4. Against the first, second and fourth defendants, the plaintiff seeks restraint and eviction orders and against the third defendants in each case the plaintiff seeks orders barring them not to enter into other dealings with other persons that would prejudice the plaintiff’s interest on both properties.

PORTION 238 C JEKWARAMBA LAND

5. This particular property is under two separate sales agreements. The first agreement is dated 22 March 2005, which Lawrence Penduo representing his family group agreed to sell the land to the plaintiff for a sum of K20, 000-00. The plaintiff has so far paid K5, 000-00 in four separate instalments.

6. Before the agreement was completed the Penduo family enters into another sales agreement on 14 September 2007 with SAVE MISSION INC. the faction under the leadership of the first defendant and which SDA Church does not seem to recognize. The agreement was for sale of land for K20, 000-00 of which K6, 500-00 has been paid and received by Penduo family in various instalments.

MOROLONG LAND

7. This is the particular land which the land owners agreed to allow the SDA Church to occupy a portion of the land for church activities back in 1986. The formal Land Usage Agreement was signed on 3 October 2007 between SDA Church and Alois and Wilfred Kungamere representing the family group that owns the land.

8. However, SAVE MISSION INC. has entered into another agreement with a Melchior Kungamere, the eldest brother of Alois Kungamere for SAVE MISSION INC. to develop the land for church activities. Though the terms of this particular agreement have not been evidenced in writing.

9. Both cases raise several issues concerning matters of Christian Faith and Association, issues concerning agreements that were entered and issue of ownership of land.

10. In my view, the first important issue that has to be resolved is whether SAVE MISSION INC is part and partial of SDA Church. This issue I think should first be discussed and resolved within the national body of SDA Church without having to go to the Courts in the first instant. The option to take the issue to the Courts should be considered the last resort. Notwithstanding, what I have said the plaintiff is at liberty to file a properly pleaded case with assistance of a qualified Lawyer in the National Court which as unlimited jurisdiction to resolve some of the issues I have raised and which this Court has no jurisdiction to venture into.

11. The conclusion reached from the above discussions is that both cases are dismissed. I order that parties bear own cost.

________________________

For the Plaintiff, In Person
For the Defendants, In Person