Garimopa v Ajamai [2022] PGDC 65; DC8068 (5 May 2022)

DC8068

PAPUA NEW GUINEA.

CIVIL JURISDICTION
DC NO: 139/2021.

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:
REX GARIMOPA
Complainant.

AND:

1. NORMAN PHILIP AJAMAI.
2. GILL AJAMAI
3. PHILIP AJAMAI
4. TORESI GILL AJAMAI
5. JAVA JASON HENDOPA
6. SILAS COLLIN KOMA
7. KIBUL ROYFORD DOIHA
8. DONAL ASITA
9. KARURAI ROYFORD
10. ETA AJAMAI.
Defendants

Popondetta: Michael W. Apie’e

2022: April 12^th, May 05^th.

CIVIL PROCEEDINGS.

-Claim for damages for assault and serious injuries.
-Denial raised, initially and during course of Trial, defendants Gill and Philip Ajamai conceded and asked for court to assess an appropriate compensation for them to pay to the Complainant.

Held:

1. Complainants claim for Damages/Compensation from the Defendants is approved.
2. Defendants are according each and severally ordered to pay Compensation as damages in the sum of K6000.00 plus Two Pigs worth K500.00 apiece or alternately the total of K7000.00 cash to the Complainant.
3. The defendants are allowed 60 days by the 05^th of July 2022 to fully pay the damages to the Complainant.
4. In default, enforcement to ensue.
   

Cases Cited:

References:

District Court Act.
Criminal Code Act

Representation:
Complainant appears for himself.
Defendants appear for themselves.

JUDGEMENT ON TRIAL.
Background.

1. The Complainant Rex Garimopa an adult elderly man in his Late Sixty’s from Jajau village in the Higaturu LLG of Sohe, Northern Province filed his summons on the 07/09//21 and claimed for damages in the sum of K6,000.00 from the Defendants for allegedly assaulting and causing serious injured on him on the 10/05/21 at one of the village near Jajau namely Hougereta or thereabouts in front of one Windford Vevehupa’s Residence.
   
2. He claimed that he was accused of causing the Death one of the Defendants Sisters and Aunty and because of that the Defendants mobilized and unlawfully assaulted and seriously injured him on the 10/05/21.
   
3. The defendants Mr. Gill Ajamai and Mr. Philip Ajamai, who are brother and the fathers and elders among the Defendants appear in representation of the others and were present during the course of the Trial when the Complainant and his witnesses were giving their Oral testimonies on the 24/01/22 and matter adjourned to 04/02/22 for Defense case.
   
4. On the 04/02/22, the defendants did not attend and matter was adjourned to the 08/03/22 for them to attend or matter to go for Ruling Ex-Parte.
   
5. On the 08/02/22 only Philip Ajamai attended court and sought adjournment as their witness was not available.
   
6. Matter is further adjourned to the 10/03/22 for mention and commencement of Defense case.
   
7. From the 10/03/22, the defense witness is still unavailable and so the matter is further adjourned to 29/03/22 for mention.
   
8. On the 29/03/22 the Defense witnesses are still not available and due to other pressing matter before the Court this matter is stood over to the 05/04/22 at the Last and final time on which they were to call their Defense Witness.
   
9. On the 05/04/22, Mr. Gill Ajamai and Mr. Philip Ajamai on behalf of all the Defendants attended court and told the Court when called to present their Defense case that they would ‘Concede to the Complainants claims’ and asked for Judgment to be entered against them to compensate the Complainant.
   
10. At the juncture, they were asked by the Court if they were speaking for all the Defendants named in the Suit and they each and severally affirmed to the Court that the decision to concede to the claim was unanimously agreed between all the persons named on the Suit.
    
11. Hence ‘Liability’ was established against the Defendants on the basis of the ‘Concessions’ by the Defendants as communicated by Gill and Philip Ajamai and the matter adjourned for Ruling on assessment.
    
12. The Complainant stands by his K6,.000.00 total claim and the Defendant submitted to the Courts for an assessment that they can meet.
    

Observations/Assessment.

13. The Court make the following Observations;
    
    1. This matter ultimately arose as a result of Accusations relating to Suspicions of Sorcery or the Practice of Sorcery.
       
    2. At this time in Papua New Guineas Political, Social, Religious, Educational and Developmental stage, it is still troubling that there are large portions or swaths of the Papua New Guinea populace still harboring deep seated beliefs and fear of Sorcery and other supernatural phenomena like it.
       
    100. One cannot fail to see Highlight Captions and Reels of Sorcery related stories in the media almost every day in Papua New Guinea, for instance as I was finalizing my Judgment in this case, in Yesterday/Wednesday 04/05/22’s National News Paper on Page 5, there is this story of an elderly woman accused of Sorcery who was rescued from her torturers in the Gazelle Area of East New Britain by Police.
         
    4. This current case could have easily turned out to be a Homicide case if the blows and cuts delivered to the Complainant by the relevant Defendants had being either directed at the right parts of the Complainants body or the degree or intensity of the cuts and blows had been higher in intensity or force.
       
    5. Parliament in its wisdom in reacting to the National Increase in Sorcery Related Killings had introduced Amendments to Section 299 of the Criminal Code Act by adding Section 299A Willful murder of a person on account of accusation of sorcery, to cater for the increase of Attacks and Killings on Suspicion of Practice of Sorcery.
       
    6. The Complainant did reveal the extent of his injuries and the permanent disfigurement inflicted on his person in court, and from the Courts Assessment of the scars and disfigurement, the difference between this case and a case of Willful Murder under Section 299A can be measured in mere millimeters and degrees.
       
    7. Fortunately, Rex Garimopa did not die, therefore we are talking here about how much he should be compensated.
       
    8. In this same Province of Oro or Northern Province, in the March Circuit of the National Court here in Popondetta, Acting Justice Camilus SAMBUA, Sentenced Several People to 40 year’s imprisonment in hard Labour for Killing people they suspected of practicing Sorcery.
       
    9. The back ground of this case makes this case against the Defendants that more serious.
       
14. The Complainant has not produced any medical reports to verify the extent of his injuries but his treatment and discharge Notes were appended to his Court Documents confirming in general that he was indeed injured seriously and had being treated at the Popondetta General Hospital until the 20/04/2021 when he was released from Hospital.
    
15. Given the Complainants status as an elderly villager and the rate at which hospitals in Papua New Guinea price their Medical Reports, the Court understands why the Complainant is not able to present a medical Report, but the fact remains that the Defendant was attacked and seriously injured as borne out by the attached Treatment notes, and also the Defendants concessions.
    
16. The Complainant in filing his suit claimed K6,000.00 in damages, and so far on the basis of matters raised above in this Judgment, it is the ruling of this Court that the amount claimed is justified.
    
17. In the final Analysis, the Court finds and Rules as follows that;
    
    1. The Defendant are each and severally Found Liable for the Injuries Inflicted on the Complainant and are each and Severally Ordered to pay the total of K6,000.00 in compensation.
       
    2. Additionally, they are also ordered to give two pigs valued at not less than K500.00 to the Complainant with the Compensation or invariably an additional amount of K1000.00, in cash.
       
    3. The Defendant are allowed 60 days until the 05/07/22 to fully settle the K6000.00 and two pigs valued at K500.00 each or total of K7000.00 compensations in lieu of the two pigs.
       
    4. In default, enforcement to ensue against the Defendants, each and severally
       
    5. Since the Parties are unrepresented by Legal Counsel, no orders will be made on costs.

Complainant in person.
Philip and Gill Ajamai for the Defendants