Kainantu Constructions Ltd v Tonefa [2017] PGDC 22; DC3042 (15 August 2017)

DC3042

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE

SITTING IN ITS CIVIL JURISDICTION

DCCi No. 96 of 2017

.

BETWEEN:

KAINANTU CONTRUCTIONS LTD

Complainant

AND:

SINGO TONEFA

First Defendant

AND;

AIYUFA AIYAKO.

Second Defendant

Goroka: P Kaumba, Magistrate

2017: August 15

CIVIL LAW : Complaint to obtain restraining orders against Defendants. This is a Kainantu case transferred to Goroka by the Kainantu Resident Magistrate due to His Worship knowing parties and has a conflict of interest to hear the case. It was transferred pursuant to section 24 of the District Court Act.

-2-

Cases Cited:

References:

Counsels:

Lawyer for the Complainant, Represented by Managing Director.

Lawyer for the Defendant, Mr N Amoiha of Javati Lawyers

15^th August, 2017

DECISION OF THE COURT

P. KAUMBA, Magistrate: The complaint came before me on the 21^st of June 2017 and I adjourned the matter parties to address the court on issue of jurisdiction of the court to hear cases arising from Kainantu District and whether the transfer of the case to Goroka by the Resident Magistrate on the grounds of conflict of interest is a valid ground for transferring a case to another jurisdiction under section 24of the District Court Act.

2. I am of the view that Goroka District Court jurisdiction is limited by territory and I am adopting my reasoning in the similar case I dealt with earlier in the case of F/C 62 of 2017 Nancy Tavio and Crimson Tavio(see copy of my decision attached) to transfer this case back to Kainantu.

3. Furthermore Lawyer for defence submitted that there is only one magistrate in Kainantu and the resident magistrate has transferred matters to Goroka and have been heard in Goroka and this court should do the same. He also added some Kainantu matters have been filed and heard by Magistrates in Goroka and this court should do the same. However this court is of the view that administrative, personnel and financial problems of the Magisterial Services cannot be used as a reason to go around the express provisions of the District Court Act which limits District Court jurisdiction by territory.

4. The complainant employee requested that he be given time to engage a lawyer and the matter be transferred back to Kainantu. The defence had no objection to the matter being transferred back to Kainantu. The court is inclined to grant the complainants request of transferring the case back to Kainantu District Court and that is the best course of action this court can take considering the issue of jurisdiction considered hereinabove..

5. The formal orders of the Court are:
-3-

1. This case is transferred back to Kainantu District Court for a circuiting Magistrate to deal with it.
2. Costs be in the cause.
   

Dated 15^th of August 2017

Counsels:

Lawyer for the Complainant,Represented by Managing Director.

Lawyer for the Defendant,Mr.N Amoiha of Javati Lawyers