|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Papua New Guinea District Court |
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
LAND DISPUTES SETTLEMENTS ACT, CHAPTERS 45
[IN THE LOCAL LAND COURT AT GOROKA]
LLC NO.033 OF 20008
BETWEEN:
JONAH EKEWAKE AND HAKIPO MATAKIA
Complainants
AND:
GIPSY PAITO
Defendants
GOROKA: M.IPANG
2008: July 21, 23
August 04, 06
2009: September 09, 25
January 04,
February 04,
2010: May 21
2011: March 25
Land Mediators/Assessors
Lore Klepetamero, Tovepa Atao and Lahone Hasu.
Spokespersons:
Complainant - In Person
Defendant – In Person
M. IPANG Magistrate: This land dispute over land known as "Yotuhaloka" was officially referred to the Local Land Court by District Land Officer Mr. Benson Imara on the 14th of November, 2007. Attached is a Form 8 confirming the said referral. Basically the referral stated that there was no likelihood of an agreement because complainant Jonah Ekewake wants to pay for the coffee block and the improvements while Defendant Gipsy Patio wants mediation to proceed to identify rightful owners of the subject land as he claimed there was no mediation held during his father's day.
2. This case present a real challenge to the machinery of the Land Dispute Settlement process and the system we have in place. We will discuss this towards the end of this judgment. This case took so many years to come to finalization and we hold the Government officials taske to administer the land dispute machinery system, i.e the mediation process and the Land Court system to be at fault for not facilitating the process properly and for causing delay which then had led to many consequences thus complicating this case.
3. It also creates challenge or places challenge to our customary norms and means of solving custormary land disputes as the land is not a plain land but a land which housed coffee plantation and severl commercial enterprices and commercial buildings to the approximate value of K600 000.00 to K800 000.00. This is case which is a fine example of the principles and challenges which the lands Title Commissioner highlighted in Re Hides Project Land Case [1993] PNGLR 317 and followed in the AMBRA NIL's Case.
Preliminary Issue:
4. Gipsy Paito raised the issue of no mediation was held during his father's time.
Complainants raised this issue that there was an agreement in place based on two documents they obtained from Goroka District Administration.
The first document is typed in English. (Annexed as "A") States:
Reg No: 385
Name of Land: YOTUHALOKA
Date: 20th November, 1980
Parties: KEFAMO – VANIMAVE CLANS
Name of mediator: KIRUPANO
Over 3.15 hectares of fully matured coffee on Wanima's land owned by Paito Hero of Kefamo.
Result:
Improvement be given back to Landowner and Compensation be made by Land owner to Paito.
Until that happens Paito will still own the property on the Land.
5. The second document (Annexere B) states:
Reg No 386
Page: 73
Date: 7 November, 1980
VANIMA - KEFAMO
Nature of Dispute: Distinction of Village Territory Boundary
Name of Land: JOTOHA – AGOKALO
KIRUPANO
21/10/80
6. Boundary mark placed witnessed by interpreters Bebe Moha and Ariraso Taro, plus Village Court Magistrate Soso Subi and Mikaive. These two (2) village Court Magistrates are now deceased.
29/10/80 It was actually on this day the dispute was settled.
7. The third document is a letter dated 24th November, 1980 written by J.P. Hombomia, Acting District Co-coordinator to the Manager Papua New Guinea Development Bank Goroka Branch. The subject of this letter states "HINAHELO BUSINESS GROUP."
8. The content of this letter stated and we find that it is necessary to quote;
"A meeting was held at the District Office between Mr.R.Giddings, Development Bank Officers, Provincial Affairs Officers, Kirupano Land Mediator and Soso, Village Court Official.
The aim of the meeting was to discuss ways to settle the disputes on which part of Business Group is under Hinahelo Development Bank loan of K60, 000.00.
Straight after that meeting, Kirupano, Soso, Mikaive and myself went to the site of the land and walked the boundary.
On the days walk around the boundary I found out that the 12:30 Hectares is not under dispute and Paito Hero has land adjacent to 12.30 hectares that he would had to make up 15 hectares or more to continue with his loan.
On Thursday 20th November, 1980, I in company with Mr. Soso Subi, Maha, Mikaive and other prominent leaders, attended a meeting near the disputed to reach an agreement between the two parties.
9. The agreement reached were as follows:
1. That the 15 hectares of land known as Yotuhahoka will fully matured coffee planted in 1952 by Paito Hero on the part of Vanima's land be given back to the landowners of Vanima.
2. That the Landowners of Vanima pay compensation to all improvements on the 3.15 hectares including the recent Development Bank spending
3. Until the negotiation date to reach an agreement on the total cost for the payment of the improvement on the land.(3.15 hectares), Paito Hero will have the right to own the property on the land.
4. In the meantime Paito has provided more than 3.15 hectares of land at the back of the 12.30 hectares to continue with his loan. It now awaits surveying to be done.
The question of when will the landowners of Vanimave Clan prepare to compensate Paito Hero on the improvements on 3.15 hectares, is something this office will inform you later. This is because there are number of matters to resolve before an agreement is reached on a figure to pay off the improvements of which I assume it will take some time.
This information is to clarify your position as to continue releasing the loan or bar it.
Attached also is sketch plan showing these areas.
For your information, please.
Yours Faithfully
........................
J.P.Hombomia
A/ District Co-rdinator
11. During the pre-trial conference, both disputing parties attended plus the land mediator's Lore,Tovepa and Lahone. Complainant Jonah Ekewake submitted there was a previous mediation that boundaries has been identified. Defendant Gipsy Paito counter argued that there was no mediation but there was a fight which caused a set back. He said the letter was addressed to the Manager Development Bank to consume and is not for any other business. He said there was no mediation as there is no formal agreement.
12. Gipsy Paito filed an affidavit dated 30th October, 2007 to clarify on the issue following facts.
13. He said he knew for certain that there was never mediation over the disputed land since registration of the case. In 1980, he stated a big fight broke out between the two tribes regarding the matter. On 27th February, 1995 a temporary order signed by Magistrate F.Manul on the 6th of March, 1995 was issued not to erect building, fence, dig, hurt or use the parcel of land for any purpose. He said at the same time, a notice to quit, leave and cease to occupy the said land to him (Gipsy Paito) from the District Lands Office, signed by Ralph Siove on the 06th of March, 1995.
14. Gipsy said there was never an agreement reached and second mediation never took place as mentioned in Ralph Siove's letter to Mr.Paito Hero and family on the 23rd of February 1995. He went on to state that they were not in any meeting or agreed to any decisions. He concluded that there was never a proper mediation so the case was handed down for further mention.
15. In paragraph 10, Gipsy stated that after their hearing and findings lore and Tovepo found no evidence of traditional landmarks therefore both parties were told to make peace and make "Bel Isi" payments of any amount at our discretion at the Goroka District Office.
16. The Complainant Jonah Ekewake wrote an undated letter addressed to Gipsy Paito and Family. In this letter Jonah stated to Gipsy Paito and Family that it was resolve in 1993 by all parties concerned that this has not materialized. Complainant set up the following demands or conditions to Gipsy Paito;
17. Complainant posted to the defendant to consider and agree to any one of the three (3) demands he sets.
18. Based on the above paragraph, Gipsy Paito said he had made payments totaling K5100.00 to the complainants and their family members.
a) 2004 - K300.00 was given to Jonah at his own request when one of his grand father (late Verapo Gorie) died
.
b) 2005 - K150.00 was given to Hakepo Matakia at his own request for school fee reasons.
c) 2005 - Kauwake Material asked for and received Toyota Dyna Short Wheel Base, Green in Co lour worth K2, 500.00. This vehicle given to him at his own request and I know Kauwale to be the family member of Jonah and Hakipo.
d) 2005 - Jonah Ekewake asked and was given K1000.00 to buy coffee cherries during Christmas period.
e) 2006 Hakipo Matakia requested and was given K150.00 for school fees.
f) 2006 - Jonah Ekewake was given another K1000.00 at his own request to buy Coffee Cherries.
14. On the 23rd order, 2007, when the compulsory Pre-trial conference was held the above discussions and facts were presented and especially those present responded that "you did not say these were for "Wan bel pasin". The motor vehicle was sold said Jonah. Jonah said they should sign an agreement.
15. Based upon the above stated, we (Local Land Court Magistrate and Landmediators) referred the matter back for fresh mediation. The final mediation was held on Friday 2nd Novemer, 2007 and since no agreement was reached, the matter was referred on the 14th November, 2007 to the Local Land Court.
16. We are concerned about the three (3) documents produced before us by Jonah Ekewake on his claim that there was agreement reached. We are of the view that correct procedure and practice under the Land Disputes Settlement Act, Chapters 45 have not been completed with, our concern involving compliance with SS.17 Mediation, 18 Agreements and 19 Approval of Agreements.
17. Also, Mikaive Ahuzale (for chairman of lower No.2 Village Court deposed in affidavt dated 29th October, 2007 that the common boundary disputes between Wanima and Kefamo, himself, Soso Subi and Kirupano did not demacate the boundary. He said they have not had a meeting and no decision was reached. He said after Kirupano died, Soso Subi, Master Gat, Lore and himself demacate boundary between Kefamo and Somogoyufa.
18. Having satisfied, we decided to conduct a full hearing in to this dispute. We feel it is only fair to give chances or this opportinity to the disputants to put their arguments to us and we will deliberate on their case. We have also noted that this dispute has been there for a long time and to hear their dispute will only a big relieve to them. So on the 26th of March, 2008 Yotuhaloka land dispute was finally heard before the Local Land Court.
Complaiant's Case – Jonah Ekewake.
19. On the 26th March, 2008 at approximately 1.30 pm Jonah gave his evidence before this Court. He opened his evidence by saying that, "I want to clear my self over this land dispute that Gipsy is from Ward12 Kefamo and I am from Ward 11." He (Jonah) continued on and said the land in dispute belonged to Varima people. He said the real name for this land is "Gavinae Makinagato." (Refer to his affidavit dated 25th March 2008 on paragraphs 2 and 3). He said the eastern side of the land in dispute is "Otamuga" which is owned by Varima.
20. Jonah said Paito Hero came to this land in a fraudulent way. (Affidavit 25. 03. 08 paragraph 6).
21. He (Jonah) told this court that his ancestor had lived and worked on this land (Paragraph 7 Affidavit 25. 03.08). Jonah continued that Jim Taylor told Paito to plant coffee, then Paito told his (Jonah's ancestors that your enemies at Saniyufa (6 mile) will come, fight and kill you people. Jonah said Paito told his ancestors to vacate the land and move out. He (Jonah) sand his ancestors then left the land.
22. After Jonah's ancestors left, Jonah said Paito planted coffee trees. He told the court that the argument errupted between Kefamo and Vanima and a big fight took place. After the fight, Kiap came to do the boundary mark. Jonah said Paito's coffee grew on the land and so Ekewake started disputing the land.
23. He (Jonah) continued that on November 1980, Rick Giddings and others held talk over this land (Para 11 of Affidavit 25/03/08). Kiap Hombomie and his team visited the land (Para 12) and eventually mediation was held (para 13). Jonah said an agreement was reached that the land will be given back to Varima and that Varima to pay comensation for coffee trees to Paito Hero.
24. Based on this, Jonah said his father (Ekewake) got the money and wanted to pay Paito but he (Paito) died in 1986. He said Gipsy Paito and family continued to reside on this land. In 1992 he said Hakipo Matakia started the land dispute again. He said hakipo chopped down trees and destroyed fence and was fined K180.00 by the Village Court.
25. In 1993, Jonah said a mediation was to be held at Goroka District office but Gipsy did not attend. A copy of the mediation notice was attached to Jonah's affidavit dated 25. 03. 08. Jonah also tendered a letter from Bill Kavananur addressed to the Senior Magistrate.
Hakipo Matakipa
26. Hakipo gave both oral and documentary evidence by way of an affidavit sworn and filed on the 26th March 2008. He said when he was a small boy he heard arguments over this land till now. He said he lived with his parents at home and they told him that they fought over this land and that his father played a leading role. He said his father died in 1986, and they did not argue over the land as they were small. In 1992, he said Paito built fence and he (Hakipo) destroyed the fence, chopped down trees. He was brought before village court and paid a fine of K180.00.
27. In paragraph 3 of his affidavit, Hakipo declared that he did not receive any formal education and stayed home with his parents especially with his father Matakia. He said in 1980 he accompanied his father Matakia and Ekewake to 5 mile on a land dispute involving Gavinae Makinagato (Yotuhaloka). He said R. Giddings and some other Government officers were there. He said during that time, officials visited the land and had given the land to Vanima people already.
28. He (Hakipo) said Gipsy Paito still remain on the land and continued to build several houses even when restraining orders not to build houses were served on him. Refer to paragraphs 8 and 10. He concluded that Jonah and him disputed the ownership of this land because they knew the land belonged to Vanima Clan.
Arinaso Taro (witness)
29. This witness Arinaso aged over 90 years was the Interpreter and worked with the Kiaps for several years, within Goroka and Bena. He said in his affidavit filed on the 25th March, 2008 that he was with the Kiap and did boundary inspection and found that the land belonged to Vanima.
Maima Tove Gluaizo (witness)
30. This witness is a village court committee attached to Asaroyufa No. 2 village court. He said he is a little over 60 years old and knew the dispute between Kefamo and Vanima. He said between 1953 and 1955, he said his father Tove Gipo argued with Paito Hero over the current disputed land. He mentioned about a fight between Kefamo and Vanima people and Vanima people doing some punishment work for late councilor Bun Aravaki. Maima's evidence is similar to that of Gumuro Sulai so we consider not really necessary to re-state them in full. This also apply to the evidence given by Waiso Kalepo and Giro Mekave. See or refer to their various affidavit filed on the 25th March, 2008.
Defendant's Case: Gipsy Paito and his witnesses.
Gipsy Paito.
31. This is the defendant in this matter. He gave both the oral evidence and produced his affidavit sworn and filed on the 26th March, 2008. Gipsy commenced by stating orally his ancestral migratory history and his family tree.
32. Gipsy said his first ancestor originated from Katagu, Lower Bena. He said his ancestors did not settle at one place as he said they were normads searching for food and shelter. He said his first ancestor Sekeloha migrated to Seigu and then to Mt. Kakageza. From there Nogotoparohe was born.
33. Nogotoparohe, he siad grew-up and got married to a Kamayufa lady named Zogmaga and Kilimai was born. Nogotoparohe died at Mt. Kaageza. Kilimai moved down to Nolulutuka at the back of Catholic Mission station. Kilimai got married to Golukuhe from Samayufa village (6 Mile).From Kilimai's marriage three (3) children were born, 1. Maime, 2. Hero and 3. Wayohe. Gipsy continued that Hero and Wayohe were great warriors who fought and won large portions of land within Kefamo.
34. Today, Gipsy said hero family lived on a big land. Hero got married to Velevelehoya, a lady from Ifiufa and form this marriage paito, Gumone (F), Lose, Gagazo and Hulutove were born. They all are alive except Paito died in June 2007 said Gipsy. They moved to Sitoka at Kefamo where PNG Bible Church is located. They experienced heavy flooding by Kefamo River so they moved up to Lekesayuveka located at a small hill.
35. Gipsy told the court that his ancestors and his father first acquired the land where Kefamo Hauslain is. He said they built house which his father later moved to Yotuhaloka. Gipsy said he was born at Yotuhaloka. Later they acquired the land at Makinagato and thereafter others moved in and the place grew big.
In 1940's, Defendant said his fahter got a job as jim Taylor's Foreman. A photo copied extract for one of the early history books Gipsy produced stated "Paito the firs successful grower had been Jim Taylor's forman. Taylor a leader of explaoratory patrols thorugh the area in 1930's and the post –war district commissioner of the Highlands, resigned form the government service to take up land near Goroka. He supplied Paito with seedlings and assisted him to bring his trees in to production." After workd War II his father married Oteote from Vanima but they have no children. He said Paito then married seocnd wife Konime from kafuku and they have Hellen. Wause, Gipsy, Kenekuho, Ailo, Dick and Alison.
37. In 1951 Jim Taylor and Paito got coffee seedlings from Aiyura and planted Asaro Coffee. Jim Taylor gave Paito some coffee seedlings and told Paito to plant them on his land. Gipsy said his land is near Jim Taylor's land. He said Paito named the land Makinagato. He said Paito distributed seedlings to his children and Makinagato was given to him (Gipsy).
38. In 1984, he (Gipsy) told this court that he up-rooted the coffee trees his father (Paito) planted in 1952 and built stores, Fuel (service) station etc... He (Gipsy) stated that he grew (expended) his businesses (see attached photographs G-1) to where they are now. He said he did that with his own sweat, money and resouces. He continued on that he built the place to what it is now.Gipsy argued that Jonah and hakipo never walk, make gardens etc.... in this land. He (Gipsy) said he has maintained his interests on this land.
39. Apart from developing the land, Gipsy in paragrap 6 of his affidavit (25/3/08) stated that he has surveyed the land and registered it as makinagato No. 2 Portion 1133C and has tendered to map in court.
Losea Hero.
40. This is Gipsy Paito's witness. He is a relative of Gipsy and he started his evidnece by giving migratory history of Kilimai and Goliku'e. We don ot want to go in to detail as Gipsy ahs covered this aspect of evidnece already. It will only repeat what Gipsy ahs said. In paragraph 5 Losea said Paito planted coffee at makinagato after Jim Taylor gave him coffee seddlings. He said Makinagato was a virgin forest. Paito got labourers from Kefamo, Vanima, Saminiyufa, Holipoka to clear the bush and plant coffee trees.
Hulotove Hero.
41. This witness is the maternal uncle of Gipsy. He (Hulotove) said when his elder brother Paito planted coffee on Makinagato, no-one complained or made any attempt to stop him from doing so. Hulotove told of an incident where Paito bought a car and they made road for the car. They had to clear out Aruko's garden which eventually led to argument and a fight broke out. This witness said punched Gonoi'e, who is Jonah's fathe. Hulotove said he has not seen Ekewake or Matakia working on Makinagato land and he said there is no evidnece of their house or settlement on this land.
Zatolo Papole.
42. Zatolo gave a short and brief evidnec. He said he comes from the same village as Jonah. That is Natauka village. He said he knew Gunoi'e who is Jonah's father. He said Paito got assistance from labourers from Vanima, Saminiyufa, Kafuka and Holipoka to plant his coffee trees. He also assisted to plant coffee trees and said no-one complained at that time.
Analysis of Arguments Presented.
Complainants Jonah Ekewake and Hakipo Matakia
Frauderntly took over Land by raising false alarm.
43. Both complaiants argued principally that Paito hero falsely, maliciously, and moreso fraudulently corned their fathers that their enemies at Saminiyufa (6 mile) will come and put up fight and kill you people. Jonah said because of this threat, his father and ancestors vacated the land. Refer to paragaph 7 of Jonah's affidavit of 25th March, 2008. This is again re-stated in paragraphs 20, 21, and 22 of this judgment – supra). The question we paused is, did this threat matterialised? Did the fight took place? How long vacating of this land did Paito took possession of it? When did paito started planting coffee trees after they left? Of course, we believe Paito did not just palnt coffee trees, he must have cleared the bushes, burned them off and then planted coffee trees. Gipsy's evidnece of Paito employing labourers from Kefamo, Vanima, Saminiyufa and Holipoka make us to view this as a large activity and all the people witnin these villages should have known of this. Obviously, Ekewake and matakia would have heard of what paito was doing and could have registered their objection or even re-claim the land from Paito.
44. We as members of Local land Court panel were not told of what properties or land marks did Ekewake and matakia left behind on the disputed land when the alleged threats were made. Secondly and most importantly we are not aware if Ekewake and Matakia did ever re-visited the disputed land after the vacant of the land in order to continue to maintain interest in the land. Jonah claimed that all his father's landmarks were destroyed by Paito.
45. In his submission, Gipsy referred us to a Lands Title commission in Amet, J (as he then was) presided over. The case cited as Re Hides Gas Project land Case [1993] PNGLR 317. In this case a number principles were mentioned by Amet, J and Gipsy has made quotations of them. Let us begin by looking at some of these principles.
(a) Earmarks of ownership (control)
It ws stated that land can only be said to "belong" to a group when it is shown that either neigbouring groups acknowledge their claim
by not challenging it or by their ability to occupy and use the land and to stop others from doing likewise, they saw that they exercise
controlling inerest over it. The catch work here is "CONTROL" and denotes controlling "interests" (as defined under the interpretation
Section of the Land Disputes Settlement Act, Chapter 45) over land.
(b) Last is first (Usage of Land)
If land is not used for sucessive generations, the claim of those furthest removed from those who vacated it, because as the years
pass of diminishing importance.
(c) Maintenance of interest in land (or possessory acts)
An interest in land is maintained by building houses and setting on it and by gardening, grazing or burning it off, collecting from
it, or forbidding others to occupy and use it.
(d) No unqualified right to return
Under this principle, it is said that once a group has abandoned its ancestral land by cutting all ties and associations with it
they cannot return and claim it at a much later date witnout the agreement of these who, prior to that date, have assumed controlling
rights to it.
46. Without going all the priciples different has quoted, we decided to pick the above and would dwell further at the latter part of this judgment. Amet, J (as he was then) said of these priciple that they are not authoritative (Supra). However, this principles in Re Hider Gas Project Land Case (Supra) found favour in the National Court Case of AMBRA NII. In that the AMBRA's case hass given the much needed legal effect to become the binding precedent. We would in our current task decide whether these principles as established by AMBRA NII's case has any bearing in our present case. We intend to do this by applying in the latter of this judgment, the relevant facts of this case to the highlighted principles. This will be the first test we will apply to test the strength of the evidences we have before us.
47. The second test that we will use is to apply the principles enunciated in the African Case of Kojo II cae as a "yard stick" to measure the two competing ownership claims and to asses which one of the two (2) competing claims is more probable. This we would do by comparing the evidences produced by Jonah Ekewake and Hakipo Matakia together with evidneces produced by Gipsy Paito.
48. Let us now consider what members of the Local Land Court panel has produced as part of their view on finality of this cae. Section 23 of Land Disputes Settlement Act, Chapter 45 spelt out the requirement ofr constitution of the Local Land Court. The Section 23 (3) of the Land Dipsutes Settlement Act (Supra) deals with how the decision of Local Land Court is to be reached between the LLC panel. It is very important that we quote this provision.
"23 (3) A decision of a Local Land Court shall be by majority vote, and where there is an equality of votes on any matter before the Court, the Local Land Court Magistrate has a casting, as well as a deliberative vote."
49. In any Local Land court proceeding under Land Dispute Settlement Act (Supra) the process that is applied when reaching the decision is stiputlated by section 23 (3) of that Act. In this present case Landmediator (1) came up with two (2) options. His first option is that Yotuhaloka Land be awarded to Vanima people for the reasons he gave as follow: (a) Vanima fought with kefamo (2) Jim Taylor bought a portion of land from Vanima (3) Hakipo destroyed wire fence. The second option proposed was to divide the Yotuhaloka land in the middle and award half to Vanima and the half to Kefamo. The reasons provided for landmediator (1) are two folds and these are (1) based on custom for peaceful living and (2) Secondly Gipsy sweated to bring much improvements or development currently on the land.
40. The other two (2) members or panelists came up with the view or option that previously and even currently there are mixture of people from different tribla groups settled on Yotuhaloka and not only one tribal group like Vanima settled on this land. Both were of the view that to say that Vanima people settled and owned Yotuhaloka is immaterial both said. Their view was based upon physical inspection made on the 25th June, 2010. Both also voiced concern that during inspection on the land they were not able to be shown any physical landmarks, ancestral graves etc to prove occupation and settlement by ancestors or fathers of Jonah Ekewake and Hakipo Matakia. Both also made mention that Jonah Ekewake and Hakipo Matakia had never ever set foot, cultivated, grazed, built houses, etc on Yotuhaloka land. They said both Jonah and Hakipo are strangers to this land. Finally, both said Gipsy ws born on this land, he worked so hard to develop the land with so many properties and commercial businesses worth millions of kina and so both said this Court should maintain the "Status Quo" and let the Yotuhaloka land to Gipsy Paito.
41. We have gone through various arguments presented by the disputants, we have highlighted the legal principles stated in Re Hides Gas Project Land Case (Supra) and given legal effet as precedent in the Ambra Nii's Case. We have also gone a step furhter to discuss the views presented by members who constituted Local land Court panel. Applying section 23 (3) of the Land Disputes Settlement Act, it is seen the views of the two (2) Landmediators has overriden the views shared by one (1) landmediator.
Application of Re Hides Gas Project Land Case [1993] PNGLR 317 Ambra Nii Case and Kojo II Case.
42. Based upo evidences presented before this court and the majority view prsented by the two (2) against one (1) Landmediators only summed up the principles enunciated in Re Hides Gas Case and Ambra Nii's Case. Refer paragraph 45 (a), (b), (c), and (d) of this judgment. We approved and hold these principles when determining ownership of Yotuhaloka Land in this Case. Applying the principle in KOJO II Case to measure two (2) competing claims, we noted that two was a huge vaccum (gap) in the history of Yotuhalika land on the part of Jonah Ekewake and Hakipo Matakia, and their ancestors.
43. There was no interest maintained by Jonah and Hakipo. We have not seen or witnessed any of their landmarks or ancestral evidences whatever and we are not satisfied. Based on majority vote, we pursuant to section 39 of the Land Disputes Settlement Act (Supra) award ownership and possession and exclusive use of Yotuhaloka Land to Gipsy Paito.
Complainant - In Person
Defendant – In Person
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/pg/cases/PGDC/2011/23.html