Getsi v Pisin [2016] PGDC 6; DC2099 (4 February 2016)

DC2099

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE
SITTING IN ITS CRIMINAL JURISDICTION]

Cr 07Of 2015

BETWEEN

JOSEPH GETSI
Informant

AND

PETER PISIN, KEVIN PATSIK, JACINTA GABRIEL, GABRIEL OSREKORA
Defendants

BUKA: TASIKUL, PM
2016, 4^th FEBRUARY

REASON FOR DECISION

1. B.TASIKUL, This matter came before me by way of a summon to a person upon information. The informant Joseph Getsi is suing Peter Pisin, Kevin Patsik, Jacinta Gabriel and Gabriel for a breach of a Local Land Court decision issued on the 25^th September, 2014. This proceeding is brought under s. 64 of the Land Dispute Settlement Act.
   
2. To appreciate the matter, let me briefly high light the brief background of the matter.
   
3. On the 25^th September,2014 his worship Mr Luke Keria sitting as a District Court issued orders to both parties namely; Peter Pisin and Joseph Getsi the following orders;
   
   1. All disputants over the customary piece of land know as Nokia, including the Nakaripa clan, Naboinclan, their agents and other people from other clans who passes any rights whatsoever, handed over to them by disputing parties are restrained from;
      
      1. Cutting down new bush for new cocoa/coconut plantation
      2. Cutting down new bush for new food gardens
      100. Building new houses or hamlets
      4. Cutting down trees for timbers for building houses or for sale.
         
   2. These restraining orders are enforceable by the court of law until the Local Land Court decisions on ownership of the land.
      
4. It was alleged by the informant Mr Joseph Getsi that the defendants did breach this order that on the 25^th February, 2014 did felled 33 logs and milled 12 logs from the disputed land. This is basically the base of this proceeding.
   
5. The issue before me is; whether or not the defendants did breach the court order of the 25^th September, 2014.
   
6. It was alleged by the informant that the defendants on several occasions entered into the Nokia land which is in disputed and harvested tree and milled timbers from them. They did not physically saw them milling the logs but they met them within the disputed land and saw milled timbers being transported. This happen on several occasions.
   
7. A Miki Kato testified that he confronted Kevin with timbers and a Lucas Mill on a back of a truck. He was questioned about those timbers. Another witness Kekes Junior confirm being one of the workers who operated a mill and they milled timber for the defendant’s sister.
   
8. A Hana Sigal also confirms that despite the court order Gabriel and his wife constructed their son’s house.
   
9. The defendants denies saying that they never breach the court order. Peter Pisin knows nothing about the matter and he never gave direction to harvest or mill any timbers. The other defendant also denies milling any timbers.
   
10. In accessing the all the evidence present by the parties I find that there were trees chopped down, there is also evidence that timbers were milled. The question is who felled the trees and milled those logs.
    
11. This disputed land is between Joseph Getsi and Peter Pisin clans respectively. No other clan would have entered the land to harvest the timbers, except one of the two parties. The evidence before clearly indicated that all the harvesting of the timbers pointed directly to the defendants.
    
12. Even though there is no direct evidence implicating Peter Pisin, the reason why he was included basically because he is the clan leader and a party to the ownership issue of Nokia land. The defendants are also members of a clan who are in dispute over Nokia land.
    
13. I therefore without any reasonable doubt find the defendants guilty as charge.