Sosa v Umbu [2021] PGDC 226; DC7087 (9 December 2021)

DC7087

PAPUA NEW GUINEA.

[IN THE DISTRICT COURTS OF JUSTICE

SITTING IN ITS CIVIL JURISDICTION]

DCC NO: 115/2021

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

1. PATRICK SOSA
2. ALFRED SOSA.

Complainant.

AND.

TOM UMBU
Defendant.

Popondetta: Michael W. Apie’e

2021: December 09^th.

CIVIL PROCEEDINGS. Enforcement of Local Land Court Orders pursuant to Section 64 of the Land dispute Settlement Act..

Cases Cited:

References:
District Court Act.
Land Disputes Settlement Act

Representation:
Complainant in person.
Defendant in Person.

JUDGEMENT ON AFFIDAVIT TRIAL.

Background.

1. The Complainants brought action against the Defendant in their action of 19/07/21 seeking the following orders;
   
   1. Finding of breach of Local Land Court Orders against the Defendant.
      
   2. Enforcement against the Defendant Pursuant to Section 64 of the Land Disputes Settlement Act.
      
2. The Order the Complainant alleges has not being complied with by the Defendant is the Order of Magistrate Vincent Linge dated the 29/11/17 wherein the learned Magistrate Ordered as follows;
   

(c). Further ordered that, monetary benefits that are still owing to Wanna No: 1 Clan be paid to Patrick Sosa who is the Leader for Further Distribution 14 days upon date of this Order

3. This Order was delivered in a Judgment following on from Protracted and long court process in which the parties were involved and due to changes of names of Beneficiaries of Payee’s for the Wanna No: 1 Clan, the Defendants name was listed as payee instead of the Complainant Patrick Sosa.
   
4. After he litigations concluded and the Ruling is handed down on the 29/11/17, the Payee’s name is changed to Patrick Sosa by Magistrate Linge.
   
5. The Action mounted by the Complainants in this case refer to Order (c) above and claim that the Defendant is obligated to comply with that order in paying ‘monetary benefits that are still owing to Wanna No: 1 Clan to Patrick Sosa within 14 days from the date of the Order.
   
6. A careful Reading of the Court orders of 29/11/17 is warranted in this case in that one needs to employ an Objective understanding to properly give meaning to this Order.
   

Issue:

7. Was the Court Referring to Moneys previously paid out in the name of the Defendant, or was it referring to Monetary Benefits that were still outstanding to be paid in the future to Wanna No: 1 Clan, to be paid this time to Patrick Sosa?
   
   1. In my reading of the Order (c) above I note that the Court made reference to the fact of the ‘Monetary Benefit that are still owing’ indicative of monies that have yet to be paid from whomever to the Clan.
      
   2. The Defendant is further not directly ordered in order (c) to make any payments to Patrick Sosa.
      
   3. In other Parts of the Order, the Defendant it identified as a Clan member who is entitled to benefit from these Clan monies.
      
8. In the final Analysis, the Court finds and Rules as follows that;
   
   1. The Application by the Complainant in this case is misguided and based largely on misunderstanding and misreading of Order (c) above.
      
   2. Order (c) relates to monetary Benefits that were outstanding up to that time from the Sponsor of such funds being the Divune Hydro-Electricity Project Management.
      
   3. Order (c) clearly is not directed at the Defendant, nor does it Explicitly Order or Direct him to pay any money to the said Patrick Sosa on behalf of the Clan.
      
   4. That being so, the Complainants Application is misguide and therefore untenable at law.
      
9. Accordingly, the Court Adjudges and will Rule as follows;
   
   1. The Complainants application is misguided and therefore refused in its entirety.
      
   2. No orders will be made on costs.

Complainant in person.
Defendant in Person.