Pakilin and Kandai v Waugulo [2001] PGNC 26; N2212 (22 October 2001)

N2212

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

WS NO: 339 OF 1996

Between:
COUNCILLORS YOOKEN PAKILIN and ALVIS KANDAI

for themselves and on behalf of members of the Pape and Wapan Clans of Komaip and Tambiok Village of Laiagam, Enga Province
(Plaintiffs)

And:

GEORGE WAUGULO
(First Defendant)

And:

HENRY TOKAM, POLICE COMMISSIONER
(Second Defendant)

And:

INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA
(Third Defendant)

Mt. Hagen : Jalina, J.
2000 : 16 October
2001 : 22 October

DAMAGES – Proof of – Claim arising out of Police raid – Assessment following default judgment – Representative action – Evidence by affidavit – Affidavit evidence from persons listed in the Schedule and others to quantify claim – Plaintiffs affidavit evidence unrebutted by Defendants - Major part of claim proved – Substantial damages awarded.

Cases Cited:
Livingstone –v- Rawyards Coal (1880) 5 APP Case 25.
Bonham Carter –v- Hyden Park Hotel (1948) 64 TLR 177.
Peter Wanis –v- Fred Sikiot & The State N1350.

Yange Lagan & Ors –v- The State N1369.

Counsel:

P. Dowa for the Plaintiffs

B. Ovia for the Defendants

22 October 2001

JALINA, J. This is a claim for damages as a result of a police raid at Komaip and Tombiok Villages near Laiagam in the Enga Province on 20th October 1991. Default judgment was entered against the Defendants on 11th June 1999. Liability having been determined, the matter has come before me for assessment of damages. In order to appreciate the various aspects of the claim and to determine whether or not the Plaintiffs have proved each claim, it is necessary to set out the statement of claim in full.

"Statement of Claim:

1. The Plaintiffs, Yooken Pakilin and Alvis Kandai are at all material times councillors of the Pape and Wapan Clans respectively and come from the Komaip and Tombiok Villages, Laiagam in the Enga Province. They are instituting these proceedings for themselves and on behalf of the Pape and Wapan Clans of Komaip and Tambiok Villages whose names appear on the schedule.
   
2. The First Defendant is and was at all material times the Provincial Police Commander (Enga), a Senior Police Officers and is an employee, servant and/or agent of the Third Defendant.
3. The Second Defendant is the Police Commissioner and is responsible for all police actions throughout Papua New Guinea.
   
4. The Third Defendant is the Independent State of Papua New Guinea.
   
5. On or about 20th October 1991, the First Defendant as Commanding Officer, led an unspecified number of policemen attached to the Wabag and Laiagam Police Stations entered the Komaif and Tambiok Villages in Laiagam, and without good cause wilfully destroyed, damaged, removed or otherwise burned down food crops, store goods, houses, domestic animals and, personal effects to the total value of K507,203.70.
   
6. Further or in the alternative, the First, Second and Third Defendants by their servants, agents, and employees in seizing and carrying away the said stock, cash, goods and livestock thereby converted all those items to their own use.
   
7. The actions of the policemen were wrong and this entitles the Plaintiff to bring an action against the Defendants under the provisions of the Wrongs and (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Chapter No. 297 and the Claims by and against the State Act Chapter No. 30.
   
8. The full particulars of the Claim are set out in the Schedule to these proceedings.
   

And the Plaintiffs’ claim:

(a) Damages of K507,203.70.

(b) Exemplary Damages.

(c) Cost of Proceedings.

(d) Interest."

SCHEDULE: LIST OF PAPE & WAPAN TRIBE

1. Carolyne Kamuri - K 7,460.00
2. Kandaine Kaupe - K 3,257.00
3. Jack Kurum - K 2,031.00
4. Gidion Pyakale - K 2,609.00
5. Wason Emek - K 5,128.00
6. Johny Walker Tunu - K 5,969.50
7. Kandamian Pokopauale - K 3,754.00
8. Ketae Alonge - K 3,762.00
9. Nicholas Panapi - K 4,285.00
10. Pass Yuli Pain - K 2,920.00
11. John Pass - K 3,723.00
12. Bero R. Angalambu - K 3, 694.00
13. Robert Angalambu - K 11,431.00
14. Buiyon & Lespina Angalulyambu - K 3,105.00
15. Kukuri Angalambu - K 2,420.00
16. Tenge Angalambu - K 2,085.00
17. John Maliki - K 1,635.20
18. Tan Kalo - K 2,508.60
19. Laipin Kalo Lipai - K 2,269.00
20. Peter Pass - K 2,804.00
21. Kaupe Kalo - K 2,816.00
22. Jonathan Yakaon Siki - K 3,107.00
23. Kararo Puio - K 2,540.00
24. Luke Laik - K 2,410.50
25. Luke Yakaen - K 3,880.00
26. Peter Qui Yakain - K 4,134.00
27. Andarias Petrus - K 1,932.00
28. Belen Minart - K 1,418.50
29. Michael Sambi Biyakale - K 3,125.00
30. Kaia Yakaini - K 3,515.00
31. Kimala Tapus - K 2,363.00
32. Kenge Tataki - K 2,074.00
33. Taliame Nelson Luke - K 3,882.00
34. Koros Kalo - K 1,368.00
35. Pakari Panapi - K 4,160.00
36. Pastor Rollen Pes - K 4,160.00
37. Lena Taki - K 1,552.00
38. Pitam Pes - K 1,523.00
39. Giamen Timbing - K 1,150.00
40. Kepa Pirai - K 764.00
41. Lason Pirai - K 3,990.00
42. Pastor David Pirai - K 47,645.00
43. Kaeo Yakine - K 3,546.00
44. Takori Emek - K 8,225.00
45. John Talin - K 1,703.00
46. Loap Panduk - K 3,100.00
47. Mr. & Mrs Oposan & Ambis Top - K 6,180.00
48. Mr. Lone Lipai - K 5,610.00
49. Mumu Top - K 4,523.00
50. Felix Polin - K 1,891.00
51. Karapuson Sanda - K 3,078.60
52. Mr. Papi Wau - K 5,789.00
53. Kondopi Wau - K 2,197.00
54. Pandan Renedy Luke - K 1,951.00
55. Yomo Wau - K 3,362.00
56. Yomo Wau - K 2,676.00
57. Ledney Luben - K 2,676.00
58. Panapi Yama - K 3,822.00
59. Kensy Ipo Panapi - K 2,657.00
60. Mas Sakarias Kalo - K 2,590.00
61. Councillor Alvis Kandai - K 6,570.00
62. Koro Tungual - K 3,523.00
63. Councillor Yooken Pakilin - K 13,713.00
64. Bakale Panapi - K 38,778.00
65. Larsen McDonald Lapen - K 27,884.60
66. Oki Bakale - K 3,613.50
67. Jerry Piao Family - K 11,735.10
68. Rommy Yank - K 4,132.20
69. Yakop Kalo & Family - K 26,000.00
70. Kalaion Pakilin - K 2,172.50
71. David Kaika - K 4,865.00
72. Korokine Yopole - K 5,052.00
73. Johnly Pitai - K 3,654.00
74. Pyakane Pirai - K 2,398.50
75. Bill Pirai - K 1,893.00
76. Frank Pirai - K 5,986.00
77. Lot Pilyia - K 2,400.00
78. Poliona Pilya - K 5,590.00
79. James Pilyi - K 2,590.00
80. Pakilin Pyako - K 5,865.00
81. John Pakilin - K 1,770.00
82. Pilyia Lyipilya - K 3,750.00
83. Angalo Pakilin - K 1,550.00
84. Arerekali Pokopela - K 3,800.00
85. Ketae Alonge - K 1,450.00
86. Yakina Kaeo - K 3,800.00
87. Walos Kiak - K 4,350.00
88. Simpson Walos - K 1, 840.00
89. Paul Pitai - K 2,050.00
90. Uta Reuben - K 1,700.00
91. Peter Walos - K 2,030.00
92. Wai Pakilin - K 2,000.00
93. Langapu Panapi - K 2,200.00
94. Dii Pakilin - K 1,550.00
95. Pitpit Anna - K 4,150.00
96. Blue Malipu - K 3,267.00
97. Taugui Lukas - K 3,897.00
98. Angolo Lako - K 2,847.00
99. Akus Gabriel - K 3,382.00
100. Tepend Yoane - K 3,907.00
101. David Nati - K 3,650.00
102. Daniel Dita - K 2,938.00
103. Leo Lelya Lipai - K 4,650.00
104. Joseph Poambo - K 2,181.00
105. Gabriel Peter - K 3,943.00
106. Ereg Erick Dipa - K 4,306.00
107. Minapo Tanis - K 4,631.00
108. Kuiyo Audi - K 3,181.00
109. Kalupai Yakawane - K 4,989.00
110. Pastor Kolaip Tuta - K 5,111.00
111. Sikis Kandai - K 4,270.00
112. Walen Kupini - K 3,848.00
113. Koro Tungual - K 3,523.00
----------------
Grand Total: K507,203.70
==========

In paragraph 5 of their amended Writ of Summons filed herein on 4th September 1996 the Plaintiffs increased the amount claimed from K507,203.70 to K576,680.30. The schedule containing the names of persons who were allegedly affected by the police raid were increased by adding the following names:

114. Steven Tan - K 1,530.00
115. Ben Rupha - K 9,880.00
116. Aquila Tan - K 1,600.00
117. Jenny Tan - K 540.00
118. Tepo Tan - K 850.00
119. Waso Kalo - K 1,600.00
120. Jamian Kalo - K 2,000.00
121. Immanuel Kalo - K 3,000.00
122. Tupas Kalo - K 3,000.00
123. Joedy Kalo - K 1,000.00
124. Enoch Puio - K 19,810.00

When the matter came before me for assessment of damages there was no "trial" in the normal sense of the word "trial" in that no oral evidence was called and witnesses examined and cross-examined by both parties. The Plaintiff has relied on affidavits that were filed earlier. The Defendants did not file any affidavits.

Having failed to give the relevant notice as required by s.36 of the Evidence Act, the Defendants have also forfeited their right to cross-examine the deponents who had filed affidavits on behalf of the Plaintiffs. So the Plaintiffs’ evidence, prima facie, remains intact. The trial was therefore conducted on the basis of counsel for both parties making submissions on quantum of damages.

General Principle on Damages

The general principle applicable when the court is considering whether or not damages should be awarded was stated by Lord Blackburn in Livingstone –v- Rawyards Coal (1880) 5 APP Case 25 at p.39:

"When an injury is to be compensated by damages, in settling the sum of money to be given for ........... damages you should as nearly as possible, get at that sum of money which shall put the party who has been injured, or who has suffered, in the same position as he would have been if he had not sustained the wrong for which he is now getting compensation........"

However, the onus is still on the plaintiff to prove his claim. It is not sufficient to make assertions in the Statement of Claim and then expect the Court to award what he claims. In Bonham Carter –v- Hyden Park Hotel (1948) 64 TLR 177, Lord Goddard, CJ. said at p.178:

"The Plaintiff must understand that, if they bring actions for damages, it is for them to prove their damages. It is not enough to write down particulars and so to speak, throw them at the head of the Court, saying .............."This is what I have lost, I ask you to give me these damages, "they have to prove it."

In McGregor on Damages, (Sweet & Maxwell, 13th Edn, 1972, London), the learned author puts the same principles in another way at p.935:

"The Plaintiff has the burden of proving both the fact and the amount of damages before he can recover substantial damages. This follows from the general rule that the burden of proving a fact is upon him who alleges it and not upon him who denies it, so that where a given allegation forms an essential part of a person’s case, the proof of such allegation falls on him. Even if the defendant fails to deny the allegations of damage or suffers default, the plaintiff must still prove him loss."

Those principles are applicable in Papua New Guinea as part of the Common Law which was adopted at independence on 16th September 1975 by virtue of Schedule 2.2 of the Constitution.

The above principle requiring a plaintiff to prove his claim was applied in Peter Wanis –v- Fred Sikiot & The State N1350 dated 1st August 1995 where Woods, J. said at p.1:

"Whilst the State (Defendant) has failed to present any evidence disputing the general claim it is still necessary for the plaintiff to produce appropriate evidence before the Court to support the quantum of the Claim."

In Yange Lagan & Ors –v- The State N1369 dated 15th September 1995, Injia, J. said at p.4:

"In my view, the minimum requirement in any action is for the plaintiff himself to give admissible evidence in support of his claim. He is not exonerated from this duty in any way by the fact that default judgment has been entered and that the trial on assessment of damage is preceding ex parte or that he has authorised another person to give evidence on his behalf. When the primary evidence of the plaintiff is lacking, there is a serious gap in the plaintiff’s case, all other evidence being inadmissible as being hearsay or hearsay upon hearsay."

Having stated the general principles I now proceed to consider the various heads of claim.

Exemplary Damages

Unlike their claim for general damages where each Plaintiff’s claim differs as to amount, exemplary damages are claimed by all of them so I propose to deal with exemplary damages first.

In refusing the claim for exemplary damages I said in Kolaip Palapi and ors –v- Sergeant Poko, Robert Nenta and the State an unreported National Court judgment (in WS 756/96) dated 5th June, 2001 at p.16:

"In this case, the Plaintiff has sued the State for the wrongful actions of certain members of the police force. Apart from Sergeant Poko, only the then head of the police force (Robert Nenta) and the State have been sued. None of the individual police officers actually responsible have been sued. Even in respect of Sergeant Poko, except for being named in the writ, there is no evidence to show that he participated in the raid let alone the orders he gave to the policemen whilst acting in his capacity as Commanding Officer of Laiagam Police Station. There is also no evidence to show that those policemen were acting in pursuance of government policy which would render the State liable. In the absence of evidence I do not consider that exemplary damages should be awarded against the Defendants."

So in the case before me, the State has been sued for wrongful actions of certain member of the police force. The Second Defendant Henry Tokam has been sued in his capacity as the head of the police force at that time.

The First Defendant George Wangulo has been named in the writ but there is no evidence from any of the Plaintiffs as to the role he played let alone evidence as to whether he was physically present at the scene and the orders he allegedly gave policemen. No individual policeman has been sued. There is also no evidence as to whether or not the policemen were acting in pursuance of government policy so as to render the State liable. I therefore refuse to award exemplary damages to all the Plaintiffs herein.

General Damages

I propose to assess under this head of damages, firstly those claims which are in excess of K10,000.00 as I consider them to be large claims. I will then assess claims which are below K10,000.00 which I consider to be small claims.

Large Claims

Large claims are from the following Plaintiffs.

1. ROBERT ANGALAMBU

The total value of properties he lost which he estimates through his affidavit is K11,431.00. A major part of that claim is for a G15 bedroom residence which has been estimated at K10,000.00. The rest of the claim is for assorted trade store goods and cooking utensils.

There is no evidence of an independent valuation of the building as well the other goods claimed to have been destroyed.

The items listed such as the house itself, blankets, pots, canvas, mattresses, cassette player, piano, buckets, dishes etc are items that can depreciate in value. I also take into account depreciation. So taking all those factors into account I would consider a fair amount that should be awarded to him to be K8,431.00 which I so award.

2. PASTOR DAVID PIRAI

The properties he lost are itemised in his affidavit. The total value of those properties is K47,645.00.

However, when I add up the value of each item specified on page 2 of his affidavit being K3,500.00 for warehouse/wholesale, K1,900.00 for poultry shed, K4,000.00 for 400 live chicken @ K10.00 each, K440.00 for 20 drinking troughs, K625.00 for 25 eating troughs and K280.00 for 20 water containers @ K14.00 per container gives a total amount of only K16,145.00 and not K47,645.00.

Again there is no independent evidence of valuation of those items such as the warehouse, drinking troughs, eating troughs and water containers. There is also the contingency that some of the life chickens could die or be used for purposes other than for sale. I also take into account depreciation in value of those items. A fair amount to be awarded in my view taking all those factors into account would be K13,145.00 which I so award.

3. COUNCILLOR YOOKEN PAKILIN
   

He has lost properties to the total value of K13,713.00. In his affidavit he itemises the properties he lost. Those properties included stock, home tools, singsing items, kitchen items, utensils, clothes, pigs, chicken, bags of starter and finisher stock feed, coleman lamp, hurricane lamp, feeding containers, sweet potatoes mounds, pandanus trees and string bags. Apart from lack of evidence of independent valuation, he does not itemise the different kinds of stock that were looted. Some of the items appear to be an over estimation as to value. For instance, 112 live chicken are valued at K10.00 each but for him to claim 120 live chicks at the same price of K10.00 per chick cannot be correct. Chicks are smaller and therefore would have been of a lesser value. One hurricane lamp is valued at K10.00 but the total amount is K30.00 which is an obvious error. Another error relates to a feed container which is valued at K10.00 but the total amount is K200.00. The same can be said of 3 pandanus trees which are valued at K20.00 but the total amount is K120.00 instead of K60.00.

A meri house is valued at K2,000.00 but he does not indicate whether it was built of bush materials or permanent materials. He also does not say what the poultry house was constructed of. I would reduce the value of the house meri to K1,000.00 and the value of the modern kunai house and trade store respectively to K800.00.

I also make allowances for depreciation of items such as tools, clothes, kitchen utensils, lamps, containers, string bags, meri house and poultry house.

Taking all those factors into account, I consider a fair award to be K10,000.00 which I so make.

4. BAKALE PANAPI

The various items he lost are set out in his affidavit. Those items give a total figure of K38,778.00.

In assessing damages I note that there is no evidence of an independent valuation of the items destroyed.

All the items listed including the permanent residential house, furniture and tools etc, are items which can depreciate in value so I make allowances for that.

I also take into account the contingency that some of the chicken could have died. There is no evidence that the lawn mowers were in good condition and were operational. Taking all those factors into account I would consider a fair award to be K30,000.00 which I also make.

5. LARSEN McDONALD LAPEN

The various items he lost are set out in his affidavit. They give a total figure of K27,884.60. There is again no evidence of independent valuation of the items lost.

As I said in assessing the claim of Bakale Panapi and others before him in the case, herein, all the items listed are items that can be subject to depreciation so certain allowances must be made for that with the result that the value of each item would be reduced.

Further reduction should be made from the contingency that chickens may die and that they could not be all sold for cash. I consider that a fair award would be K20,000.00.

6. JERRY PIAO FAMILY

The various items that were destroyed are set out in his affidavit. They amount to a total of K11,735.10.
Just as the others I have assessed, there is no independent evidence of valuation for the items destroyed. The items listed are subject to depreciation which should be considered against the Plaintiff. I would assess his claim at K9,000.00 which I consider to be a fair assessment.

7. YAKOP KALO & FAMILY

Like the others, the items that he lost set out in his affidavit. They amount to a total of K26,000.00. Apart from the fact that there is no independent evidence of valuation, the items listed are subject to depreciation which would result in the value of each item being reduced.

A major part of his claim is for destruction to an G1 residence which he valued at K20,000.00 but he does not indicate the material it was built of. I would consider taking those factors into account that a fair figure would be K22,000.00.

8. ENOCH PUIO

The various items that he and his family lost are set out in his affidavit. They amount to a total of K19,810.00.

A major part of his claim is in the sum of K14,000.00 which relates to the destruction of his G 1 residence. The other items are household items such as beds, blankets, chairs, tables and cooking utensils etc.

There being no evidence of independent valuation coupled with the fact that those items depreciate in value over time, I would reduce his claim to K15,000.00 which amount I so award.
I now turn to the small claims.

Small Claims

The small claims are contained in each Plaintiff’s affidavit. They list items which are basically the same. They range from items such as kunai houses, pigs, chickens, sweet potato mounds, personal items such as clothes and cooking utensils.

Apart from what each Plaintiff assess as to the value of each items there is no evidence of independent valuation. These items are also subject to depreciation so reduction in value should be made for that. I would make a global reduction of K500.00 from each claim and award the balance to the Plaintiffs.

So the principal sum I award to each Plaintiff is as follows:

1. Carolyne Kamuri - K 6,960.00
2. Kandaine Kaupe - K 2,757.00
3. Jack Kurum - K 1,531.00
4. Gidion Pyakale - K 2,109.00
5. Wason Emek - K 4,628.00
6. Johny Walker Tunu - K 5,469.50
7. Kandamian Pokopauale - K 3,254.00
8. Ketae Alonge - K 3,262.00
9. Nicholas Panapi - K 3,785.00
10. Pass Yuli Pain - K 2,420.00
11. John Pass - K 3,223.00
12. Bero R. Angalambu - K 3,194.00
13. Robert Angalambu - K 8,431.00
14. Buiyon & Lespina Angalulyambu - K 2,605.00
15. Kukuri Angalambu - K 1,920.00
16. Tenge Angalambu - K 1,585.00
17. John Maliki - K 1,135.20
18. Tan Kalo - K 2,008.60
19. Laipin Kalo Lipai - K 1,769.02
20. Peter Pass - K 2,304.00
21. Kaupe Kalo - K 2,316.00
22. Jonathan Yakaon Siki - K 2,607.00
23. Kararo Puio - K 2,040.00
24. Luke Laik - K 1,910.50
25. Luke Yakaen - K 3,380.00
26. Peter Qui Yakain - K 3,634.00
27. Andarias Petrus - K 1,432.00
28. Belen Minart - K 918.00
29. Michael Sambi Biyakale - K 2,625.00
30. Kaia Yakaini - K 3,015.00
31. Kimala Tapus - K 1,863.00
32. Kenge Tataki - K 1,574.00
33. Taliame Nelson Luke - K 3,382.00
34. Koros Kalo - K 868.00
35. Pakari Panapi - K 3,660.00
36. Pastor Rollen Pes - K 3,660.00
37. Lena Taki - K 1,052.00
38. Pitam Pes - K 1,023.00
39. Giamen Timbing - K 650.00
40. Kepa Pirai - K 264.00
41. Lason Pirai - K 3,490.00
42. Pastor David Pirai - K 16,145.00
43. Kaeo Yakine - K 3,046.00
44. Takori Emek - K 7,725.00
45. John Talin - K 1,203.00
46. Loap Panduk - K 2,600.00
47. Mr. & Mrs Oposan & Ambis Top - K 5,680.00
48. Mr. Lone Lipai - K 5,110.00
49. Mumu Top - K 4,023.00
50. Felix Polin - K 1,391.00
51. Karapuson Sanda - K 2,578.00
52. Mr. Papi Wau - K 5,289.00
53. Kondopi Wau - K 1,697.00
54. Pandan Renedy Luke - K 1,451.00
55. Yomo Wau - K 5,538.00
56. Ledney Luben - K 2,176.00
57. Panapi Yama - K 3,322.00
58. Kensy Ipo Panapi - K 2,157.00
59. Mas Sakarias Kalo - K 2,090.00
60. Councillor Alvis Kandai - K 6,070.00
61. Koro Tungual - K 3,023.00
62. Councillor Yooken Pakilin - K 10,000.00
63. Bakale Panapi - K 30,000.00
64. Larsen McDonald Lapen - K 20,000.00
65. Oki Bakale - K 3,113.50
66. Jerry Piao Family - K 9.000.00
67. Kalaion Pakilin - K 1,672.50
68. Rommy Yank - K 3,632.20
69. Yakop Kalo & Family - K 22,000.00
70. Kalaion Pakilin - K 1,672.00
71. David Kaika - K 4,365.00
72. Korokine Yopole - K 4,552.00
73. Johnly Pitai - K 3,154.00
74. Pyakane Pirai - K 1,898.00
75. Bill Pirai - K 1,393.00
76. Frank Pirai - K 5,486.00
77. Lot Pilyia - K 1,900.00
78. Poliona Pilya - K 5,090.00
79. James Pilyi - K 2,090.00
80. Pakilin Pyako - K 5,365.00
81. John Pakilin - K 1,270.00
82. Pilyia Lyipilya - K 3,250.00
83. Angalo Pakilin - K 1,050.00
84. Arerekali Pokopela - K 3,300.00
85. Ketae Alonge - K 950.00
86. Yakina Kaeo - K 3,300.00
87. Walos Kiak - K 3,850.00
88. Simpson Walos - K 1,340.00
89. Paul Pitai - K 1,550.00
90. Uta Reuben - K 1,200.00
91. Peter Walos - K 1,530.00
92. Wai Pakilin - K 1,500.00
93. Langapu Panapi - K 1,700.00
94. Dii Pakilin - K 1,050.00
95. Pitpit Anna - K 3,650.00
96. Blue Malipu - K 2,767.00
97. Taugui Lukas - K 3,397.00
98. Angolo Lako - K 2,347.00
99. Akus Gabriel - K 2,882.00
100. Tepend Yoane - K 3,407.00
101. David Nati - K 3,150.00
102. Daniel Dita - K 2,438.00
103. Leo Lelya Lipai - K 4,150.00
104. Joseph Poambo - K 1,681.00
105. Gabriel Peter - K 3,443.00
106. Ereg Erick Dipa - K 3,806.00
107. Minapo Tanis - K 4,131.00
108. Kuiyo Audi - K 2,681.00
109. Kalupai Yakawane - K 4,189.00
110. Pastor Kolaip Tuta - K 4,611.00
111. Sikis Kandai - K 3,770.00
112. Walen Kupini - K 3,348.00
113. Steven Tan - K 1,030.00
114. Ben Rupha - K 9,380.00
115. Aquilla Tan - K 1,100.00
116. Jenny Tan - K 40.00
117. Tepo Tan - K 350.00
118. Waso Kalo - K 1,100.00
119. Jamian Kalo - K 1,500.00
120. Immanuel Kalo - K 2,500.00
121. Tupas Kalo - K 2,500.00
122. Joedy Kalo - K 500.00
123. Enoch Puio - K 15,000.00
----------------
Total: K446,894.65
==========

Each Plaintiff is awarded interest of 8% per annum pursuant to the Judgments (Interest on Debts and Damages) Act Ch. 52 from the date of issue of the writ to judgment. Such interest shall be added on to each Plaintiff’s principal sum in damages prior to payment.

The Plaintiffs’ costs shall be met by the Defendants.

Note:

The assessment has been amended by consent of both counsel by adding the names which appear from Plaintiff No. 114 to 124 in the Amended Writ of Summons after those Plaintiffs names were inadvertently overlooked when the judgment was handed down on 22nd October 2001.
____________________________________________________________________
Lawyer for the Plaintiffs : Dowa Lawyers
Lawyer for the Defendants : Solicitor General