Peuba v Haitra [2022] PGDC 66; DC8069 (5 May 2022)

DC8069

PAPUA NEW GUINEA.

CIVIL JURISDICTION
DC NO: 280/2010.

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

NATHANIEL PEUBA
Complainant.

AND:

GIDEON HAITRA.
Defendant

Popondetta: Michael W. Apie’e

2022: April 14^th to May 05^th.

CIVIL PROCEEDINGS. Action seeking Summary Ejectment of Defendant State Lease Portion 1514 Milinch Sangara in the Higaturu.
Defendant was Legally appointed Care taker to the Block Portion 1514 by Late owner in 1996.

Cases Cited:
Gawi v. PNG Ready Mixed Concrete Pty Ltd [1984] PNGLR 72

References:
District Court Act.
Summary Ejectment Act

Representation:
Complainant for himself.
Defendant for himself.

JUDGEMENT ON TRIAL.
Background.

1. The Complainant filed this claim against the Defendant on the 22/09/21 and seeks the Eviction of the Defendant from Portion 1514, which he claimed is titled to one Romney Baima Peuba, his deceased late father.
   
2. The Complainant claims in his Complaint that the Defendant had entered into Portion 1514 Milinch of Sangara without right and took Possession of the State Lease and had since then being benefitting from all proceeds from the said Oil Palm block without equal Distribution to the Complainant who is claimed to be the true beneficiary to this block.
   
3. The Defendant denied the claims and insisted that he was allowed onto this Land Portion by Late Romney Peuba himself as his care taker and so he was on this Land by authority of the Late Title Holder himself.
   

Complainants case:

4. The matter is set for trial on the 21/02/22 and the trial commenced and the Complainant called his first witness one Edrick Gainba, then on the 08/03/22 he called Collin Kukuma, who both gave rudimentary evidences to support the Complainants claims over Romney Baima Peuba’s Estate and Portion 1514.
   
5. On the 29/03/22 The Complainant called Ms. Rhoda Tumbari of Oro Division of Lands who gave evidence that sheds clarity on this case, and is a balanced testimony that does not support either the Complainant or the Defendant.
   
6. Her Evidence is as follows;
   1. She revealed to this Court a copy of a Statutory Declaration (Stat-Dec) by Late Romney Peuba declared on the 10^th of May 2005 and left with the Lands Division of Oro.
      
   2. Firstly, in that Stat-Dec Late Romney Peuba confirmed that he was title holder to Portion 1514,
      
   3. He also confirmed that Gideon Haita (His son in Law) is appointed as Care-Taker to portion 1514.
      
   4. Further that the Title is to remain in his name and that Gideon Haita should not transfer title to his own name without his (Romney’s knowledge or permission)
      
   5. What the Stat-Dec does not do is acknowledge any single person including the Complainant as his Next of Kin, let alone make mention of any son including the Complainant by name as persons with interests or rights to this Property.
      
   6. It can be said by looking at this Stat-Dec that Romney Peuba did not envisaged nor considered neither did he make any allowances for the Complainant or any others to insert themselves into this Property.
      

Defendants case:

7. The Defendant and his witness Frank Enori gave their account in which they challenged the Complainants right to Claim under Romney Peuba’s estate as they claim he was not Romney Peuba’s biological issue.
   
8. They also insisted on the Defendant being permitted to Take Care and live on the Block by the Late Romney Peuba himself.
   
9. The Defendant also tendered a letter dated 01/09/21 by one Mr. Bernard Piskaut, the Divisional Manager for Igora Division vouching for the Defendant as a duly recognized Care-Taker who had worked hard to care for this Block for over 25 years and therefore ought to be recognized or duly acknowledged.
   

Observations:

10. The Complainants case commenced on the footing that the Defendant inserted himself into the property without right and took possession and control over this Portion 1514, somewhat illegally.
    
11. This Fundamental Claim by the Complainant is disproved by the Complainants own witnesses Ms. Rhoda Tumbari with the Provision of this Statutory declaration, revealing that Gideon Haita is on the Block Potion 1514 by Permission of the title Holder himself since 1996, which is more than can be said of the Complainant.
    
12. The Same Stat-Dec relied on by the Complainant makes no mention of the Complainant, let alone make allowance for the Complainant or any other person to insert themselves into this block other than the Late Romney Peuba and the Defendant Gideon Haita.
    

Eviction/Summary Ejectment.

13. The Complainant seeks Eviction of the Defendant from Portion 1514, and Alienated Land and so in Proceeding such as these seeking to proceed under Section 6 of the Summary Ejectment Act, the Law and case Law is well Settled.
    
14. In the Gawi v. PNG Ready Mix case, the Reasoning of Late Kapi DCJ as he is on point here wherein the Late Deputy Chief Justice in discussing Section 6 of the Summary Ejectment Act held that ‘If the one Claiming Ejection of someone else has clear title then this Provision should be invoked, but if such persons Title or Claim to the Alienated Land is ‘Bone Fide’ in Dispute, then Section 6 cannot be invoked’
    
15. In the case at hand, the Defendant Gideon Haita is a Care-Taker appointed by the Late Title Holder himself and affirmed by other Witnesses including the Divisional Manager for Igora Division with the Oil Palm Industry Corporation (OPIC) Company, Mr. Bernard Piskaut himself.
    
16. He therefore has certain rights to Portion 1514 as Care-taker that is recognized whilst the Complainant on the other hand is a ‘Stranger’ as far as this block is concerned because there is no allowance made for him either as ‘Next of Kin’ let alone even mentioned by name in the same vein as Gideon Haita being mentioned as a Son-in law and Care-Taker in the 10^th of May 2005 Stat-Dec.
    
17. It can be said that the late Romney Peuba had done wrong by his children by not making any allowance for them in the aforesaid Stat-Dec, let alone by other means either through OPIC or the Lands Department, but then there is no basis for this Court or anybody else for that matter to Second Guess the said Romney Peuba’s motives or intentions regarding these matters.
    
18. It is interesting that the Defendant in his evidence pointed out that during the very low point in Late Romney Peuba’s life when he was divorced and left by his wife, the Complainants mother, there was no-one else behind or beside him except for the Defendant and his wife, and they became his strength and support during that time so he chose to appoint them as care-takers and he did.
    
19. Therefore, the Complainant Nathaniel Peuba’s Claim for Eviction of the Defendant from Portion 1514 is not only Misguided and Misconceived, but also Untenable in Law and cannot be granted.
    
20. The Complainant should pursue his claims through the Public Curators Office and also make representation to OPIC and the Lands Department for himself and his surviving brother Henry, instead of challenging this matter in court without any iota of right to base his claims on.
    
21. In the final Analysis, the Court finds and Rules as follows that;
    1. The Complainants claim for Eviction of the Defendant from Portion 1514 Milinch or Sangara is refused.
       
    2. The Defendant Gideon Haita a duly Appointed Care-take of Portion 1514 is allowed to remain on the said portion until Title to the said Land portion is determined and allocated, transferred or dealt with in any manner by the Lands Department.
       
    3. Since the Parties are unrepresented by Legal Counsel, no orders will be made on costs.

Complainant in Person.
Defendant in Person.