Makas v Kalasim [2017] PGDC 36 (22 September 2017)

DCC 7 of 2017

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE

SITTING IN ITS CIVIL JURISDICTION]

DCC No 7 of 2017

BETWEEN

HENDY MAKAS

Complainant

AND

KEPAS KALASIM

Defendant

MADANG: JOSEPHINE KILAGE

2017: 22 SEPTEMBER

    

Facts

Hendy Makas ,the Complainant, was asked by Kepas Kalasim, the Defendant, to look his block of land at Nagada. The Complainant had no residence at the time and was working for the Defendant as a security guard. He and his wife minded the block of land. Mr Kalasim and his family planted banana and beletnut trees on the block of land. Mr Makas was there to live on the land and to tend to Mr Kalasim’s land and food crop.

Mr Kalasim then went through some difficulties and he sold his land to Jackson. Ms Makas was not told of the sale and when Mr Jackson wanted to move onto the land Mr Makas got angry with the new owner. He felt aggrieved that Mr Kalasim had not informed him or compensated him for looking after his land. Mr Makas wants Mr Kalasim to compensate him for damaging food crops belonging to him. The Statement of Claim states that the Defendant in trying to remove the Complainant from the land had damaged property in excess of K6000.00.

In the evidence it was shown that the bananas and coconuts were planted by Mr Kalasim and his relatives and that Mr Makas was minding the properties of Mr Kalasim. There is no evidence produced in court to show Mr Kalasim had damaged his own food crops on his own land. Mr Kalasim said he had informed Mr Makas that he would need to vacate the land as he had sold it. Mr Makas stated that he no longer resided on the Mr Kalasim’s land but was given another land. He was directed by the court to bring the landowner and his surveyor to court. Mr Kalasim was also directed to bring the new owner to court and the matter was adjourned to 20^th September 2017. The issue that was addressed at that time was whether or not the Mr Makas was still residing on the Defendant s land.

On that day Jackson the new owner of the land gave evidence that he owned the block behind Mr Kalasim and when Mr Kalasim offer to sell the block to him they both went to see the landlord who agreed with the sale of the block of land from Mr Kalasim to Jackson. Jackson then joined the two blocks together and when he moved onto the property Mr Makas caused damaged to food crops on the land. He also gave evidence in court that the land upon which the complainant Mr Makas was living on was in between his original block and the block he bought from Mr Kalasim. On the day the matter was heard Mr Makas and his witnesses were not present and the court proceeded on the matter as the matter had been unduly delayed while waiting for the complainant and defendant’s witnesses to appear before the court.

Hendy was told to bring the land owner to verify if he had given land to him to occupy. He did not. He later turned up to court on 22 September 2017 with his surveyor on the day of ruling . When asked by the court why he did not turn up on the 20^th of September 2017 he said the court had adjourned to the 24^th of September and that he was misinformed. However ,if the court worksheet and diary shows otherwise. If indeed he had thought the matter was to have been heard on Sunday the 24^th of September 2017 he would not be in court on Friday the 22^nd of September 2017.

Issue

Is liability established? No it has not been established.

Findings

I find that the complainant is living on Jacksons land. He has no legal basis to be on the land. He was told to leave the property. I find that he has no basis to remain. He was a guest of the former owner and their agreement for Mr Makas to reside on the land expired on the day Jackson bought the land. He has no cause of action before this court. He has no claim before his court.

I therefore order the following;

(1) Liability not established.
(2) Case dismissed.
(3) Defendant discharged from complaint.
(4) The complaint has no basis to remain on the land which now belongs to Jackson.
(5) If he remains then the new owner of the land can take further legal action to remove the complaint from his land.

Given by my hand

Josephine Kilage
Provincial Magistrate