John v Tony [2017] PGDC 13; DC3023 (19 September 2017)

DC3023
PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE

SITTING IN ITS GRADE FIVE CIVIL COURT JURISDICTION]

GFCi: 37of 2017

BETWEEN

DELMA JOHN

Complainant

AND

NANU TONY

First Defendant

AND

MATHIAS TONY

Second Defendant

AND

VINCENT TONY

Third Defendant

AND

FOX TONY

Fourth Defendant

AND
-2-
CECELIA TOMATO JOHN

Fifth Defendant

Goroka: R. APPA, PM

2017: August 31

September 19

CIVIL –

Cases Cited:
Nil

References:
Nil

Counsels:
Nil

19^thSeptember, 2017

DECISIONOF THE COURT

R. APPA, PM: This is a case over intestate properties (3 coaster PMV buses and one Ford) of late John Walter, no wills left behind. The complainant is one of the wives of the deceased.

2. The complainant claims that the above properties were with her after the death of her husband when the defendants mobilized and took out those said properties and are now using them and she asked this court seeking orders for return of those properties. She said she has concerned about her two young children left behind with her. She also claimed that soon after the death of her husband the defendants forced her to withdraw all the money from the bank and she withdrew on three occasions all the family money to a tune of over K50, 000.00.

3. The defendants denied liability. The 1^st to 4^th defendants are blood brothers of the deceased and 5^th defendant is the first wife with 9 children. Their evidence was that those three coaster buses were bought by the deceased and the 5^th defendant and were in operation well before the complainant came into the family therefore she was not entitled to take ownership except the Ford.

4. The question is on jurisdiction of this court to deal with this type of case. The case is over intestate properties of deceased person where there was no Will, this often causes confusion and disputes on inheritance by the immediate families and dependents.
-3-

5. The law that deals with such situation is the Wills, Probate and Administration Act of 1966 which is administered by the Public Curators Office.

Section 35 K of this Act says-

(1) Where there is a dispute in respect of entitlements to the estate of a person who dies intestate, that dispute shall be dealt with by the nearest village court under the Village Courts Act of 1989. Section 36 of the Village Courts Act deals with general jurisdiction dealing with disputes of such nature applying customary law and practice on inheritance.

(2) If there is no village court in the area in which the deceased lived immediately before his death, the dispute shall be dealt with by the District Court.

6. In the present case, we have Village Courts established in the whole Province so one option is available to the parties.

7. The next option is the Public Curators Office where parties can go to if their Village Court is not able to handle this case.

8. I am also not in any position to declare ownership of those properties (3 buses and Ford) because firstly no will was left behind and secondly the values of those properties go beyond my jurisdiction.

ORDERS:

Until such time ownership and inheritance of those intestate properties were decided either by the Village Court or the Public Curators Office, it is ordered that the PMV bus operation is to continue under the management of the 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th defendants and distribute proceeds amongst the deceased dependents including the complainant and her two children of the deceased John Walter.

Dated this 19^th day of September 2017 at Goroka.

Counsels:
Nil