Harvest Ltd v Nanei [2022] PGDC 108; DC9036 (28 October 2022)

DC9036

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE

SITTING IN ITS CIVIL JURISDICTION

GFC 43 of 2022
BETWEEN

HARVEST LIMITED
1^st Applicant

AND

ELIZABETH BURAIN
2^ND Applicant

AND

KEARNETH NANEI
1^st Respondent

AND

ABG DEPARMENT OF JUSTICE & LEGAL SERVICES
2^nd Respondent

AND

AUTONOMOUS BOUGAINVILLE GOVERNMENT
3^RD Respondent

BUKA: BTASIKUL
2022: 28^th OCTOBER

      

Civil-

Cases Cited

References

Counsel

RULING OF THE APPLICATION

1. B. TASIKUL: This is an application filed by the first and second respondents, Harvest Limited and Elizabeth Burain through their lawyer Kopunye Lawyers asking the District Court to have the substantive matter against them be dismiss pursuit to s150, 151 (1) & 22 of the District Court Act. Their grounds for this application is based on that the District Court does not have jurisdiction as per s.21 (1) (a) & 21 (4) (f) of the District Court Act.
   
2. The application is supported by the affidavit filed by Nelson Kopunye filed on the 13^th October, 2022. He deposed that a letter was sent to the respondent lawyer to have the matter be withdrawn cited jurisdiction issue. However, no respond was received from his request from the respondents’/complainant lawyer, so they decided to file this application, where they are also seeking costs.
   
3. The applicants/defendants through their lawyer submitted that the District Court has no jurisdiction on monetary value of more the K10,000.00 and also where a title to land is bona fide in dispute.
   
4. The respondents through their counsel filed a submission. I noted through his submission he argued that the substantive cause of action has nothing to do with monetary claim or land, but illegal occupation of land by the applicant. Their cause of action is pursuant to s.6 of the Summary Ejectment Act. The counsel for the respondent/ complainant supported his augment through his affidavit file on the 14^th of October, 2022 where he deposed in paragraph 11 stated that ‘’ According to the facts and evidence presented, the defendants are illegally occupying the state land and unjustly enriching from the use of it for years. This court has jurisdiction to issue orders under the Summary Ejectment Act,1952.
   
5. The substantive cause of action filed by the respondent / complainant on the 6^th September, 2022 which I do not intend to go through it, but can be summarised briefly on the statement of claim follows; The applicants were given approved by the Bougainville Executive Council (BEC) in 2012 to build an office complex on the portion of State lease at Allotment 19 Section 23 Granville Buka town. After the applicants/defendants completed the construction of the building, they rented out to the Bougainville Police Services through a tenancy agreement.
   
6. The Bougainville Police Services (BPS) moved in and occupied the building and thereafter, continuously renting the property, until they ceased due some disputes over the ownership of the land. Upon this dispute the respondents/complainant are now seeking a court declaration claiming that the applicants/defendants are illegally occupying this portion of land.
   
7. The issue now before this court is: does this court District Court has the jurisdiction to make such declaration order or to grant order for eviction under the Summary Ejectment Act.
   
8. The District Court is a creature of a statue which is the District Court Act. It derives all its powers under the Act. Section 21 of the Act stipulates the civil jurisdiction of the court.
   
9. The Court has civil jurisdiction up to only K10,000.00 monetary value. S21 (1) (a). ss (4) stipulates jurisdiction where the District Court does not have jurisdiction over.
   
10. The respondents’/ complainants contentions are that they are seeking ejectment orders under s.6 of the Summary Ejectment Act. Section 6 state: Where a person without right, title or licence is in possession of premises, the owner may make a complaint to the Magistrate of a District Court to recover possession of the premises, and.........
    
11. I agreed with the respondents/complainant that the District Court has the jurisdiction to grant eviction orders under the Summary Ejectment Act. But there must be evidence of proof of a title. There is no evidence before this court who has the title to this portion of state land allotment 19 Section 22. The respondents/ complainants are claiming that Bougainville Executive Council (BEC) gave approval to the applicants/ defendants to build on that portion of land. So the question is who own or have the title to this portion of land. Both the applicants or respondents have failed to show cause any proof to ownership as per title to the land.
    
12. A copy of the National Court order tendered to court shows that the National Court ordered that the parties to do a land search to find out who own the land. To date there is no evidence before me to proof ownership to this portion of land.
    
13. I am of the view Bougainville Executive Council (BEC) has no mandate to allocated land to any person as that’s is the function of the Bougainville Land Board. Bougainville Executive Council (BEC) decision is not in anywhere proof of ownership.
    
14. Therefore, without any evidence of ownership, of title, s6 of the Summary Ejectment Act is irrelevant and does not apply to this situation. I, therefore, rule that this court does not have any jurisdiction on this matter where there is a dispute over a state lease title. Furthermore, the respondents/complainants do not have a proper title so they cannot be granted an eviction order under s6 of Summary Ejectment Act. Therefore, the substantive matter is dismissed with cost be awarded to the respondents/complainants. The cost must be within the District Court cost schedule.