Gemo v Kokoipa [2021] PGDC 209; DC7068 (11 November 2021)

DC7068

PAPUA NEW GUINEA.

[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE

SITTIN IN ITS CIVIL JURISDICTION]
DCC NO: 71 and 72 /2021.

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

FEDDIAN GEMO.
Complainant.
.
AND.

1. JANET KOKOIPA
2. GABRIEL TEHU
3. SERAH IOUDE
4. OLGA IOUDE.

Defendants.

Popondetta: Michael W. Apie’e

2021: November 11^th.

CIVIL PROCEEDINGS. Claim compensation for Threatening behavior
CIVIL PROCEEDING. Application to orders under section 209 and 210 of the District Court Actfor the Defendants to be ordered to enter into surety to keep the peace and be of good behavior towards the Complainant and his family.

Cases Cited:

References:
District Court Act.

Representation:
Complainant in person.
Defendants each in person.

JUDGMENT ON TRIAL.

Background.

1. The Complainant filed Two claims against the Defendants and claimed the following against them as follows;
   
   1. In DCC 71 / 2021 he claimed that the on the 21^st of November 2020 at Monosota village in Popondetta the Defendants unlawfully entered his Block and therein caused violence and disturbances upon him and his family. He therefore seeks orders under section 209 and 210 of the District Court Act for the Defendants to be ordered to enter into surety to keep the peace and be of good behavior towards the Complainant and his family.
      
   2. The Complainant also in DCC 72 /2021 seeks orders of Compensation against the Defendants for allegedly repeatedly assaulting, threatening with offensive weapons and chasing him off with threats to cut his head off at the neck.
      
2. The Complainant seeks the above orders and relies on his wife and also on his own evidence to establish his claims for orders against the Defendants.
   
3. His Evidence is brief as follows;
   

Monica’s Story.

1. His wife or ‘De Facto Partner’ Monica Sasesio gave a brief account without going into vital details of having previously said something negative about the Defendant Janet Kokoipa resulting in the Defendants fronting up at her Father’s house/block whereupon a short argument ensued followed by a peace settlement.
   
2. She further claimed that her husband the complainant was dragged into this issue and she did not agree with that, but she failed to provide further details as to how the Complainant was dragged into this issue.
   

Feddians Story.

3. The Complainant also gave a brief account of what happened that day and he said that the Defendants came in that morning to their home and started saying things and looking serious so he tried to get them to stop or wait but they utter some words to him that he did not want to repeat in Court.
   
4. He felt upset at these words and left and was hiding in the block or bushes and returned to find that the Defendants and Monica had resolved their Differences and had left.
   
5. Later, he tried resolving the matter himself but could not so he told Monica and took these two matters to Court.
   

Janet Kokoipa’s Affidavit.

6. The Defendants all relied on the Affidavit sworn by Janet Kokoipa on the 09/06/21.
   
7. In that Affidavit Defendant Janet Kokoipa stated that;
   
   1. She is related to Monica Sasesio and so her entrance into the Monosota Block was not unlawful and she and her family had every right to enter that block.
      
   2. Monica made a comment about Janet’s third Pregnancy and so she was told to go to Monosota to resolve this issue by other family members so they went that morning. They had nothing to do with the Complainant.
      
   100. The Defendant husband and second Defendant had a short bush knife on him for security reasons and not to do anything to the Complainant.
        
   4. When they arrived, Monica started Arguing with Janet Kokoipa and during the heat of this argument the Complainant inserted himself in and also argued with her and that’s when the other Defendant also got on the Complainant.
      
   5. It was during this time that the Second Defendant commented about cutting the Complainant and then just left it at that and walked away.
      
   6. They were standing 15 metres apart and at no time did the Defendants venture close enough to effect the physical assaults claimed.
      
   7. The attempts to resolve with the Complainant first at the Police Station and Later at Monosota never eventuated since the Complainant did not attend himself.
      
   8. The Defendants and Monica decided to resolve their differences themselves in his absence. They promised the family that they would apologize to him and compensate him when he comes.
      
   9. The Complainant instead issued this two summons against the Defendants, hence this Ruling.
      

4. Observations /Assessments. Having heard the evidence in this trial I make the following observations and assessments;
   
   1. The Complainant has not fully established his case as;
      
      1. Monica Sasesio has not provided the details necessary to sustain the Complainants case in respect of both claims.
         
      2. The Complainants own reluctance to recite the words uttered to him allegedly by the Defendants further compounds the matter as how could the court assess the seriousness of the Case if the Complainant refused to give details necessary for the court to conclude on?
         
      100. The Complainant has not established his allegation of physical assaults.
           
      4. However, the Defendant Janet Kokoipa’s own affidavit discloses evidence necessary to sustain the claim of being threatened with physical violence, ‘Gabriel Tehu threatening to cut the Complainant.’
         
      5. The claim of unlawful entry into the block is nullified simply because the Defendant(s) and the Complainants ‘wife’ Monica are related and their comings and goings to that block was natural and frequent.
         
      6. It seems, this whole situation could be a once off incident as the Defendants have tried their outmost to resolve this matter with the Complainant even to the Point of Defendant Gabriel Tehu putting a suggestion for familial resolution outside of court during his cross examination of the Complainant.
         
   2. It is primarily on the above reasons that the Court does not see the need or utility of proceeding under sections 209 and 210 of the District Courts act to compel the Defendants to enter into a Recognizance to be of Good behavior toward the Complainant.
      
   3. However, the utterances made toward the Complainant though not detailed have being admitted to by the Defendants wherein Janet Kokoipa deposed that when Feddian inter posed into her argument with Monica the other also argued with him and also that Gabriel threatened to cut him.
      
   4. The Court finds that these were done in the heat of Arguments between the parties so how responsible should the Defendants be and should some of the responsibility go back to the Complainant?
      
   5. As they say, ‘You play with fire you get burnt!’ ‘If you do not want to get hurt do not get involved in a fight’ ‘If You do not like insults or threats do not get to exchange with people who might offer such to you.
      
   6. The Complainant should not have tried to come to Monica’s aid that morning as she was more than capable of arguing with her family members, the Defendants, without further input from the Complainant being required.
      
   7. However, even though the threats and other words admittedly spoken by the Defendants at the Complainant were done in the heat of arguments, it is never okay to insult and threaten people with cutting or killing them.
      
   8. It is on that basis that this court assesses that the Defendants are wrong and ought to appropriately placate and compensate the Complainant.
      
5. In the final Analysis, the Court finds and Rules as follows that;
   
   1. On the basis of the Evidence presented the Court Rules that Complainant has not presented a compellable case to invoke Section 209 and 210 of the District Court against the Defendants each and severally.
      
   2. However, the Court finds that the Defendants ought to appropriately Compensate the Complainant for the Fear, hurt and humiliations suffer from the threats offered to him by the Defendants causing him to run away and hid from them.
      
   3. The Defendants have indicated a desire to settle with the Complainant and so it is the intention of this court to give then the opportunity to set right that which they did wrong as family members with the Complainant
      
6. Accordingly, the Court will order as follows;
   
   1. The Complainants claim for Invocation of Sections 209 and 210 of the District Court against the Defendant in DCC 72 of 2021 is refused as not be relevant in the circumstances of this case.
      
   2. The Complainants Claim for Compensation against the Defendants is established by admissions found in the Defense case and so the Defendants are Ordered as such that;
      
      1. Within 30 days from today, the Defendants meet the Complainant at a mutually agreed location and offer settlement to this problem by payment of appropriate Compensation not less than K500.00 and not exceeding K2000.00 to the satisfaction of the Complainant.
         
      2. The Defendants are further ordered without invoking Section 209 and 210 of the District Courts Act to keep the peace and be of good behavior towards the Complainant, from hereon, for a total period of 12 calendar months, to terminate on 29/06/22.
         
   3. In Default, Enforcement Proceedings to ensue against the Defendants.

Complainant in person.

Defendants each in person.