Mond v Kalasim [2004] PGNC 130; N2638 (26 August 2004)

N2638

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

WS NO. 434 OF 1997

BETWEEN:

AINA MOND, APA GRAI, ALPONES SIWI KOGLUA, BAUNDO MOGONO and ANDREW KONMA
on their own behalf and on behalf of all members of the Auakane, Morumbagawamo, Tamgoyani, Okondie and Awauglakane Clans of the Kamaneku Tribe more particularly named in Schedule "A" of the Writ of Summons.
First Plaintiffs

AND:

TANGANE KOGLWA
and all those people named in Columns 2 and 3 of Schedule "B" of the Writ of Summons.
Second Plaintiffs

AND:

GIGBAI KOGLWA by his next friend ALPONSE SIWI KOGLWA
and all those infants by their next friends named in Schedule "C" of the Writ of Summons.
Third Plaintiffs

AND:

UMBA SIWI
and all those persons named in Schedule "D" of the Writ of Summons.
Fourth Plaintiffs

AND:

GUNDU UMBA
and all those persons named in Columns 2 and 3 of Schedule "E" of the Writ of Summons.
Fifth Plaintiffs

AND:

KUNDUANE SIWI by his next friend UMBA SIWI
and all those infants named in Schedule "F" of the Writ of Summons.
Sixth Plaintiffs

AND:

CHIEF INSPECTOR ROBERT KALASIM
First Defendant

AND:

THE INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA
Second Defendant

Mount Hagen: Manuhu, AJ
2004: June, 21, 22, 23 & August 26.

JUDGMENT

CONSTITUTION – Breach of constitutional rights – Constitution ss. 36, 37(1), 44, 49 & 53 – Exemplary damages.

TORT – Liability – Duty of care – Breach of duty – Appropriate remedy.

DAMAGES – Destruction of properties in police operation – General damages – Special damages.

Cases cited
Aundak Kupil v. State (1983) PNGLR 350.
Anis v. Sikiot & State (1995) N1350.
Apa & Ors v. Police & State [1995] PNGLR 43.
John Wena & 46 Ors v. The State (2003) N2529.
Kim Pai v. State (2002) N2207.
Kolaip Palapi v. State (2001) N2274.
Kuk Kuli v. State (28.06.04)(Unreported).
Kuriti v. State [1994] PNGLR 262.
Kusa v. MVIT (2003) N2328.
Lagan & 58 Ors v. State (1995) N1369.
Lin Wan Xin v. Wau Yanhong (2001) N2160.
Livingstone v. Rawyards Coal [1880] UKHL 3; (1880) 5 AC 25.
Manuesh v. State [1996] PNGLR 211.
Moka v. MVIL (2001) N2098.
Peter Kamane & 66 Ors v. Police & State – WS No. 233 of 1994 (unreported).
Pickett v. British Rail Engineering Ltd (1978) 3 WLR 955.
Salamon & Ors v. State [1994] PNGLR 265.
Sharp & Sharp v. The State & Ors (1995) N1398.
Shelly Kupo v. MVIT (2002) N2282.
Tony Wemin & Ors v. State (2001) N2134.
Yooken Pakilin & Alvis Kandai v. State (2001) N2212.

Counsel:
Mr. K. Kua & Mr. P. Kuman, for the plaintiffs.
Mr. B. Ovia, for the defendants.

26th August 2004.

MANUHU, AJ.: This is a claim for unliquidated damages for alleged destruction of property and personal effects during a police raid on 29 May 1991. On the said day, a police operation, code – named Operation Lomet 2/91 ("police raid") was allegedly conducted in the plaintiffs’ villages resulting in an extensive burning and destruction of the plaintiffs properties and other personal effects.

The question of liability has been determined by consent of the parties. The proceeding was filed on 8 May 1997 and served on the same day. The State failed to file its Notice of Intention to Defend and Defence within the time required under the Claims By and Against the State Act and the National Court Rules. Seven months thereafter, on 9 December 1997, the plaintiffs filed an application seeking default judgment. Such judgment was entered by his Honour, Sir Mari Kapi, DCJ (as he then was) with the consent of the Solicitor-General on 17 December 1997. The matter comes before me for assessment of damages only.

Preliminary matters

It is necessary to understand how the plaintiffs have organized themselves and what they are specifically claiming. There are 977 plaintiffs altogether. Each of them is allegedly affected by the police raid, and is suing in his name. They have come to court in the following order.

The First Plaintiffs are all the male plaintiffs who were involved in the coronial inquiry held in relation to the police raid. As heads of their respective household, they are claiming special, general and exemplary damages with interest. The Second Plaintiffs are wives and adult dependents of the First Plaintiffs. They are only claiming general and exemplary damages with interest. They do not claim special damages. The Third Plaintiffs are minors and or infant dependents of the First Plaintiffs. They are claiming general and exemplary damages with interest. They do not claim special damages.

The Fourth Plaintiffs are all the male plaintiffs who were also affected by the police raid but were not included in the coronial inquiry. They, like the First Plaintiffs, are claiming special, general and exemplary damages with interest. The Fifth Plaintiffs are wives and adult dependents of the Fourth Plaintiffs. They are only claiming general and exemplary damages with interest. They do not claim special damages. The Sixth Plaintiffs are minors and or infant dependents of the Fourth Plaintiffs. They are claiming general and exemplary damages with interest. They do not claim special damages.

Secondly, certain plaintiffs have died since the police raid in 1991. On 25 August 2003, appropriate orders for substitution of these deceased plaintiffs were made together with other consequential orders. It is necessary to note who the substitute plaintiffs are. This information appears in the tables in the First Schedule of the judgment.

Thirdly, in spite of the consent order on liability, it is appropriate, even if it is a mere formality, that the basis of liability be explained. While such a course may take a little longer than necessary, it recognizes that, in most cases, liability and assessment of damages are proved on the basis of the same or overlapping evidence. Consequently, while the court is analyzing the evidence for the purpose of assessing damages, it is appropriate if the justification for having reached that stage is also laid out. In so doing, the evidence and the reasoning process are presented in totality for the benefit of the parties as well as other persons interested in the decision.

Finally, as a reminder, the civil standard of proof should never be taken lightly by reason of a default judgment, an ex parte proceeding, or a consent order. The responsibility upon a plaintiff, in support of his claim, to produce admissible and credible evidence that will ultimately satisfy the civil standard of proof is a universal requirement. Any complacency may prove fatal. In this case, therefore, where the defendants have admitted liability; where the trial is on assessment of damages only, and; where the defendants have opted not to produce any rebuttal evidence, the plaintiffs are still required to prove their claims. See related discussions in the cases of Lange Lagan & 58 Ors v. State[1], Yooken Pakilin & Alvis Kandai v. State[2] and Kolaip Palapi v. State[3].

Liability

I said in one of my judgments[4] that a cause of action in tort simply means a duty usually conferred by law which when breached entitles the injured party to sue the person in breach for unliquidated damages. I also said that such duty runs parallel with a right. The existence of a right under the underlying law or a statute, including the Constitution, imposes a duty on others not to violate that right.

Duty and right

The principal defendant in this case is the State, and, as we all know, its duties and obligations to its subjects are usually prescribed by law. In this case, the plaintiffs rely on specific provisions of the Wrongs (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, the Claims By and Against the State Act 1996, the Search Act, the Arrest Act and the Constitution.

Under the Wrongs (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act the State is subject to all liabilities in tort to which, if it were a private person of full age and capacity, it would be subject - in respect of torts committed by its servants and agents; and in respect of any breach of the duties that a person owes to his servants or agents under the underlying law by reason of being their employer; and in respect of any breach of the duties attaching under the underlying law to the ownership, occupation, possession or control of property.[5] A duty is thus imposed on servants and agents of the State to observe a certain degree of care towards others during the exercise of their official duties and functions. In the event of breach, the State may be held vicariously liable for the tortious acts or omissions of its servants or agents.

The Claims By and Against the State Act provides that a person making a claim against the State in tort may bring a suit against the State, in respect of the claim, in any court in which such a suit may be brought as between other persons.[6] The provisions of the Act apply to applications for the enforcement and damages against the State of a right or freedom.[7] This provision does not actually create any obligation or duty. It is, however, important in that it enables an injured party to sue the State in the same manner as the right to sue other persons.

The Search Act provides that a person who exercises a power to make a search in breach of the Act; or exercises a power conferred by the Act, other than a power of search, in breach of the Act; performs a duty imposed by the Act in breach of the Act; fails or refuses to perform a duty imposed by the Act, may be liable in damages to the person aggrieved by that breach.[8] Anyone, usually the police, exercising a power conferred by the Search Act must do so in accordance with the Act. Non-compliance with the provisions of the Act, if it results in an injury such as invasion of privacy, may be actionable in a court of law.

The Arrest Act is structured in similar fashion. It stipulates that a person who exercises a power to make an arrest to which the Act applies in breach of the Act; exercises a power conferred by the Act, other than a power of arrest, in breach of the Act; performs a duty imposed by the Act in breach of the Act; fails or refuses to perform a duty imposed by the Act, may be liable in damages to the person aggrieved by that breach.[9] A wrongful arrest impinges on, among others, the right to liberty and may be actionable in a court of law.

The Constitution also defines various other rights and freedoms which when breached would entitle an injured party to sue for unliquidated damages. Rights specifically pleaded by the plaintiffs include freedom from arbitrary search and entry,[10] freedom from inhuman treatment,[11] right to privacy,[12] unjust deprivation of property[13] and the right to protection of the law.[14]

Consistent with these statutory provisions, there have been numerous authorities in this jurisdiction where the State has been held vicariously liable for its servants and agents non-compliance with their underlying law and statutory duties and obligations. See Apa & Ors v. Police & State,[15] Kuriti v. State,[16] and Salamon & Ors v. State[17].

This case may proceed in similar fashion. If it is proved that the police raid was carried out on the day in question resulting in extensive burning and destruction of the plaintiffs’ properties and personal effects, the defendants would be in breach of their underlying law and statutory duties and obligations already referred to; and the State may ultimately account according to law for those breaches.

Breach of duty and infringement of rights

It follows therefore that the plaintiffs must prove to the required standard that the defendants were in breach of their aforementioned duties and obligations, and; that they have suffered loss as a direct consequence of that breach. It has to be proved, in particular that on 29 May 1991, police conducted a raid in the plaintiffs’ villages and extensively burned and destroyed the plaintiffs’ properties and personal effects. In that regard, the plaintiffs rely on their respective affidavit evidence, a Coroner’s report, and a valuation report.

In view of the large quantity of affidavit evidence; the absence of rebuttal evidence; the election not to cross-examine any witness; and, the consent order on liability, it would be sufficient, in my view, to just provide a summary of the affidavit of the evidence. The facts deposed to in the plaintiffs’ affidavits are similar in contents or not at great variance. The following is a fair summary of the plaintiffs’ affidavit evidence.

There was a police raid on 29 May 1991 in the Kamaneku area in the Kundiawa District, Simbu Province, by Police under the command control of the First Defendant. The police raid followed an allegation that some of the young boys from the plaintiffs’ tribe, led by deceased Palma Okuk, stole a television set from Papua New Guinea Banking Corporation flats in Kundiawa. There was widespread destruction of the plaintiffs’ properties by fire and other means during the police raid. Among other things, property destroyed include bush material houses, semi-permanent and permanent houses, cash crops and food gardens, and livestock. The plaintiffs, either individually or with their respective dependents of all ages suffered hardship as a direct result of the police raid and the retaliatory action by other clans.

Unfortunately, the above summary, while satisfying the civil standard of proof, probably does not capture the plaintiffs’ own personal experience of the police raid. Their sufferings can only be best expressed by them. For that purpose, I include hereunder the relevant self-explanatory parts of the affidavits of Aina Mond and Palma Gogla, who are amongst the First Plaintiffs. It is not necessary to do likewise with the other plaintiffs. Aina Mond explained his experience in the following manner:

"2. I am married and had 3 children who were 14, 12 and 6 years old in 1991.... I also had 3 other adult children living with me at that time in 1991.... My tribe is called the Kamaneku and I am from the smaller Tamgoyani Clan.

"3. I am aware that in May 1991 some young men from my tribe allegedly broke into the residence of a PNGBC employee in Kundiawa and stole a TV set.

"4. I am also aware that in a public announcement the First Defendant in his capacity as the then Provincial Police Commander issued a warning to all the Clans of Kamaneku Tribe, whose land laid to the northerly boundaries of Kundiawa Town, giving 24 hours in which to return the TV set, failing which he threatened to carry out a police raid into our villages.

"5. Apparently, the TV set was not returned and the police came and raided our villages and destroyed our houses, gardens and other properties."

Palma Gogla’s recollection of the police raid is more revealing:

"2. I am about 49 years old, married and have six children presently, 24, 21, 17, 14, 10 and 7 years old. My tribe is called the Kamaneku and I am from the smaller Auakane Clan.

"3. In May 1991, some young criminals from my Clan allegedly broke into the residence of a PNGBC employee in Kundiawa and stole a TV set.

"4. In a public announcement the First Defendant in his capacity as Provincial Police Commander issued a warning to all the Clans of the Kamaneku Tribe, whose land lays to the northerly boundaries of Kundiawa Town, and gave them 24 hours in which to return the TV set, failing which he threatened to carry out a police raid into the villages.

"5. Because of the seriousness of the threat, I left my job as a public servant with the Department of Home Affairs with the Simbu Provincial Government to assist the police in their search into the surrounding villages.

"6. On a tip off we eventually found the TV set in the bush and took it back to the Police Station but it was too late.

"7. By then the Police Mobile Squad under the command of the First Defendant had already driven off to Pari Village, which lay behind the mountain to the north of the township of Kundiawa to commence the raid.

"8. On my request the Police drove me towards Pari Village which is about 15 kilometres out of town.

"9. At the Sigewage Gorge, we drove into the First Defendant who was driving back into town. Our Police vehicle stopped and I told the First Defendant that we had found the TV and asked him if he could call off the police raid into the villages.

"10. The First Defendant was uncooperative and told me to go and stop it if I could and he drove off into Kundiawa.

"11. The three policemen who were with me and I drove towards Pari Village but by then I could see that smoke was already rising from the Villages as houses were torched by the policemen. I learned that the policemen came from the Riot Squad Unit stationed at Kerowagi. They have been specially brought in to carry out this raid.

"12. I watched as houses after houses were torched as the policemen worked their way up the mountain with the view to reaching the top and then descending down back to Kundiawa town on foot.

"13. One of the young criminals suspected of being involved in the theft of the TV set was called Palma Okuk, a nephew to me. I feared that the villagers might retaliate and attack me if I went towards the site of the police raid so I returned to town with the policemen.

"14. In town I could see that smoke was rising from the houses on the ridge of the mountain. This meant that the policemen had already reached the top. My house was so conspicuous because it [was] located right at the back of the ridge and can easily be seen from town. I could see it burning. It was a semi-permanent house. I was really broken hearted and shocked by the scope and scale of the police raid. I did not know what to do initially.

"15. I then walked up the mountain to my village through a bush tack to avoid police who were now descending and torching the villages on this side of the mountain as they were descending into Kundiawa town.

"16. By the time I reached my house, the fire had died down and the ashes were just smouldering.

"17. My wife was there when the raid started and she was just able to save my briefcase which contained some documents. All of our belongings went up in flame. All the houses up and down the mountain and along the ridges were burnt down.

"18. Most of the villagers moved into caves in the vicinity of the villages to sleep.

"19. My wife and my five children then, and my old auntie who lived with us, moved into a pigs hut in the bush nearby which was not torched. We cleaned it up and slept there.

"20. I saw that some people who had salvaged canvass sheets were able to make a tent to sleep in. It was lucky that it did not rain in the first night following the raid.

"21. Nevertheless, it was so cold that we were hardly able to sleep in. The children kept awake for most of the night and we had to keep the fire burning just to keep warm. The night temperature on the top of the ridge is normally very cold and it proved miserable for the all lot of us.

"22. The next day it rained so hard that it caused us more hardship. Water leaked into the pig’s hut through the rotten roof in which we had moved into and it became staid, sticky and smelly. Both fleas and bedbugs attacked us furiously and aggravated our sufferings.

"23. I saw that some of my Clan’s men and their families migrated to the neighbouring clans and tribes but most were not able to do so. There were so many of us that it was not practical for all of us to be absorbed into the neighbouring clans. Not every body had the appropriate type of relationship with those in the neighbouring clans to be able to look for assistance.

"24. The second day after the raid I came into town and bought a canvass to place on top of the leaking roof to keep out the rain.

"25. Nearly everyone was so busy trying to rebuild some type of a shelter for his own family that there was no spare hand available to assist the other. Constructing a house or any major practical activity in the village is usually a communal affair where one helps the other. In this case every body was involved in fending for himself and his family that there was no spare hand available to assist the other in building his or her shelter.

"26. It took up to 3 to 4 weeks before some of us had some temporary shelter arranged for our families to move into.

"27. During that 3 to 4 weeks period life was so miserable. My family and I lived during that period in what used to serve as our family pigs’ house. My wife and children suffered very badly both physically and mentally. We all lost so much weight.

"28. I took special leave from my employment for about 3 weeks to deal with the emergency faced by my family.

"29. I observed that all the people in the various clans of the Kamaneku Tribe suffered in the same way.

"30. A lot of people lived in caves until temporary shelter was built. I cannot ever recall my people sleeping in caves before this incident. If one or a few houses were burnt, there were always other houses in the villages for people to move into. In this case everyone lost their home and no one was able to rescue or help the other.

"31. Our sufferings were enormous. Children were sick.

"32. On the evening of the police raid the members of the various Clans ganged up in anger and killed my nephew Palma Okuk who was suspected to being involved in the theft of the TV set which led to the police raid of the villages. The Clansmen then placed young Okuk on a canvas stretcher and delivered it to the Police Station at about 8pm. The corpse was handed over to the First Defendant who was then present. The First Defendant was shocked and did not know what to say.

"33. I did not see who killed Okuk as it happened in the dark and many people from many different clans were involved.

"34. We nearly had a major tribal warfare as a result of the police raid as blame was being pinned on young Okuk. The situation was very tense and further added to our misery.

"35. We did not know if and when any other clan was going to attack us. However, I observed that Okuk’s death somehow helped to reduce the tension.

"36. In July 1991, a coronial inquest was conducted into the police raid into the villages by Coroner Richard Giddings. He found that police raid was code named "Operation Lo-met 2/91".

"37. The Coroner found that the police were responsible for the destruction of all the villages. He also found that a few remaining houses were however torched by villagers who blamed young Okuk for the police raid. It happened straight after the police raid and it was hard to tell which was destroyed by the police and which was destroyed by angry tribesmen.

"38. I gave evidence at the inquest. ...."

The plaintiffs’ affidavit evidence is further complimented by the findings of a Coroner. A coronial inquest by the then resident Provincial Magistrate of Simbu Province, Mr. Richard James Giddings on 3, 4, 5 and 12 July 1991. Mr. Giddings found that between approximately 3.30pm and 5.00pm on Wednesday 29 May 1991, within Kamaneku Tribe in Kundiawa District, houses and personal effects of Alphones Siwi Koglua and certain other persons were deliberately set on fire and destroyed by police officers conducting a raid.

In the process, other clans, who felt unjustifiably affected by the actions of police, set fire to and destroyed houses and personal effects of more people. It was found that the responsibility for the other clans’ retaliation lies with the Second Defendant, who was Field Operational Commander for Simbu Province during Operation Lo-Met 2/91. It was further found that deficiencies in planning, control and command by the Second Defendant brought about the situation in which arson was committed by police officers and by other clans.

The full extent of the plaintiffs losses are contained in the valuation report. I will return to this matter in due course.

In the final analysis, I am satisfied that plaintiffs have shown to the required standard that the defendants were in breach of their respective duties and obligations; and, that they have suffered immensely as a direct consequence of that breach. There was, on 29 May 1991, a police raid in the plaintiffs’ villages which resulted in extensive burning and destruction of the plaintiffs’ properties and personal effects, including bush material houses, semi-permanent, permanent houses, cash crops, food gardens, and livestock. Accordingly, the defendants are liable to appropriately compensate the plaintiffs.

Assessment of Damages

The judgment on liability was consented to unconditionally thereby embracing all the heads of damages enumerated by the plaintiffs in the originating process. Those heads of damages include special, general and exemplary damages with interest for the First Plaintiffs and Fourth Plaintiffs; and general and exemplary damages with interest for the Second Plaintiffs, Third Plaintiffs, Fifth Plaintiffs and Sixth Plaintiffs.

I am also aware of the economic and financial constraints of the State. The State has paid millions in settlement of judgments. I am also aware of the community’s view against legally initiated compensation claims against the State. Such sentiments are understandable but, at the first instance, the State and its institutions, servants and agents must take the first step of correcting its failures.

All citizens are entitled to protection of the law; and in our system of governance, the State has the responsibility to guarantee that protection. When the State fails its duties and obligations, it is just and fair that such failure is able to be translated into monetary terms and is paid to the person injured. Thus, legally instituted compensation claims are merely consequential upon the State’s failure. Consequently, compensations claims made according to proper principles of law do not deserve to be despised by the community and or, most importantly, the courts.

Special Damages

The object of special damages is to "as nearly as possible get at that sum of money which will 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...."[18] Consequently, special damages are easily assessable. "They are the losses directly flowing from the unlawful actions of the defendant".[19] Relevantly, claims for property losses such as burning and destruction of dwelling houses, personal effects, gardens, and so on are made under this head.[20]

For assessment purposes, the relevant evidence consist of the plaintiffs’ affidavits and the valuation report. The summary of the valuation report is provided in synchronized tables in the Second Schedule of the judgment. The need for such evidence was highlighted in the case of Anis v. Sikiot & State[21] by Woods, J. in the following manner:[22]

"First he [Plaintiff] claims for a permanent house. There is no evidence apart from his assertions and a photograph of a blackened site as to the nature and standard of his building. Here the Plaintiff has brought no independent evidence as to the standard of the house. It is not enough to just assert an estimate, it must be supported."

"The Plaintiff is also claiming for loss of clothes and household properties and tools in the destruction. Whilst I am prepared to accept that there was some loss of personal property the Court cannot just find any amount based on what the Plaintiff asserts, to consider more than just a basic amount here there must be other independent evidence from people or officials who knew the Plaintiff’s house or know his lifestyle to account for such values."

However, in the recent decision of Tony Wemin & Ors v. State[23] Kirriwom, J. awarded K1,703,556.00 based solely on the affidavit evidence of the 425 plaintiffs.

It seems to me, therefore, that the need for independent evidence in like cases is not a requirement of law. A plaintiff is only required to satisfy the minimum requirement of proof in civil cases by producing such evidence that would satisfy the court as to the matters in question; and, the weight to be attached to such evidence is dependent on the circumstances of each case.

In this case, therefore, I am satisfied that the plaintiffs have surpassed the civil standard of proof by miles. There are hundreds of affidavit evidence and a valuation report that are totally unchallenged by the defendants. There is overwhelming evidence of destruction and loss caused to the plaintiffs by the defendants during the police raid. These losses have been assessed by an independent and credible valuation expert.

It is not uncommon in this country for a plaintiff to exaggerate his claim; and, without an independent assessment, no one will know if a claim is genuine. But if an independent estimate has been conservative, it must be genuine. Such is the case here where the majority of estimates have literally been slashed by the valuer. For instance, the plaintiffs’ own estimates of their losses add up to K4,264,538.00. The valuer’s estimates add up to only K2,271,830.00 which is around K2,000,000.00 less. This Court has relied on the findings of this valuer in the past[24] and I accept his findings and conclusions without reservation.

Inflation is usually a relevant factor in the assessing special damages. In Lagan & 58 Ors v. State[25], five per cent depreciation was permitted for loss of house and household items. In Salamon v. State[26], five per cent depreciation was permitted for loss of houses and other personal properties. I note that the nature of losses in those cases is similar to those in this case. The plaintiffs have been generous in asking for ten per cent to be permitted for depreciation. I accept their figure and will take it into account in the calculations.

Ultimately, the special damages to be awarded on the amount as contained in the valuation report are as follows: First Plaintiffs - K1,323,950.00 less ten per cent equals K1,191,555.00; Fourth Plaintiffs - K947,880.00 less ten per cent equals K853,092.00. The total special damages award is K2,044,647.00.

General Damages/Breach of Constitutional Rights

All of the plaintiffs, as guaranteed by the Constitution[27] are claiming general or reasonable damages for breach of their constitutional rights. Pertinently, in the case of Apa & Ors v. Police & State[28] his Honour, Sheehan J, said:

"The wilful destruction of citizens homes and even whole villages, without justification or lawful excuse is clearly a breach of fundamental constitutional rights. It is worse then that, it is criminal, but in any case certainly warranting the compensation that Section 58 of the Constitution envisages."

From the evidence, the police raid and the consequential burning and destruction of property was carried out without due regard to the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and freedoms. Provisions of the Constitution in relation to protection against harsh and oppressive treatment, freedom from arbitrary search, entry and seizure and the presumption of innocence were flagrantly breached.

The physical presence and entry into the premises and land of the respective plaintiffs without a lawful authority is contrary to the provisions of the Search Act as well as the Constitution[29]. The policemen were not in "hot pursuit" and did not have any valid search warrant. The destruction of the plaintiffs’ homes, food crops, economic crops and properties "is inconsistent with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person".[30] It is tortuous and criminal. The police raid itself amounts to inhuman treatment of the plaintiffs, and; the consequence of the police raid, as detailed in the plaintiffs affidavits, also amounts to subjecting the plaintiff’s to unnecessary and undue sufferings.

The actual trespassing on to the premises, house and land of the plaintiffs by policemen was an interference with the right to privacy.[31] The plaintiffs were entitled to reasonable privacy in respect of their private life and entitled to the quiet use and enjoyment of their land, house and properties. The destruction of houses and personal items and looting of economic goods amounts to an unjust deprivation of personal and real property including the interests and rights of the owners who are the plaintiffs.[32] The entry into the plaintiffs’ premises, land and property was also contrary to the Search Act and in breach of the Constitution[33] in that the general protection of the law was not accorded to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were treated inhumanely.[34]

In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the plaintiffs are entitled to receive general or reasonable compensation as guaranteed by the Constitution.

The plaintiffs have asked for K7,000.00. In the case of Namuesh v. State[35] an award of K1,000.00 was made for breach of s. 44 of the Constitution when policemen entered the plaintiff’s premises at night without a search warrant and were not in "hot pursuit". In Salamon v. State[36], Woods J. considered constitutional breach together with the issue of exemplary damages and awarded a global sum of K2,000.00 each "for those persons who had houses destroyed or looted". For two of the plaintiffs, Woods, J. went further and awarded K4,000.00 each because they were allegedly assaulted and falsely imprisoned.

In the case of Peter Kamane & 66 Ors v. Police & State[37], Kapi DCJ (as he then was) awarded K2,000.00 per plaintiff for breach of Constitutional rights by consent of the parties. In the recent case of Kim Pai v. State,[38] in circumstances of police raid where one house was burnt, trade stores and other properties including residential houses were looted and damaged, and livestock including pigs and poultry were killed, Jalina, J. awarded K2,500.00 for each plaintiff for breach of constitutional rights.

Inflation is also a relevant consideration in the assessment of general damages. The object of such consideration is best explained in the English case of Pickett v. British Rail Engineering Ltd[39], thus:

"Increase for inflation is designed to preserve the "real" value of the money; interest to compensate for being kept out of that "real" value. The one has no relation to the other. If the damages claimed remained, nominally the same, because there was no inflation, interest would normally be given. The same should follow if the damages remain in real terms the same".

This English case has been cited with approval in the case of Aundak Kupil v. State[40]. See also Lin Wan Xin v. Wau Yanhong[41], Shelly Kupo v. MVIT[42], and Kusa v. MVIT[43]. In Moka v. MVIL[44], a recent personal injury case, the Supreme Court emphasized the effect of inflation on assessment of general damages in the following manner:

"We are of the opinion that in the light of high rate of inflation existing at the present time the Courts ought to consider that as a factor in considering awards for general damages for pain and suffering. We consider that due to inflation, the award for general damages for pain and suffering ought to be much higher now than what the Court was awarding in 1988 and 1998.... Accordingly, our view is that, general damages for pain and suffering should be higher than claimed in this case."

In the present case, the raid happened in 1991 which is nearly 13 years ago. There is no doubt that the value and the buying power of the kina has dropped significantly over the last 13 or so years. The plaintiffs say that they have not asked separately for damages for distress and mental anguish occasioned by the raid and the fact that many of them were destitute with their families and lived in poverty for many months.

I agree that the plaintiffs greatly suffered from the unlawful police raid. They lost the comforts and warmth of their homes for months. I have been a resident in Kundiawa and I have a fair idea of how cold it is at nights. I cannot imagine how the plaintiffs, especially old people, mothers and children, endured the cold at nights. For all these sufferings, they have not made any claims.

On quantum, therefore, I realize that the extent of one plaintiff’s suffering may not be the same as the other but the Constitution does not discriminate between young and old, man and woman, literate and illiterate, and so on. Consequently, guided by the authorities referred to, I would naturally fix a uniform award at around K3,000.00 per plaintiff. But I have to consider inflation and I do so in the light of what the Supreme Court said in Moka v. MVIL[45]. I also take into account that the plaintiffs have not asked for damages for distress and mental anguish occasioned by the raid and the fact that many of them were destitute with their families and lived in poverty for many months.

In the circumstances, I will apportion general damages at K5,000.00 for each plaintiff. In my view, K5,000.00 is a just compensation for breach of each of the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. Since there are 977 plaintiffs, the total award, which is naturally consequential upon the individual award of K5,000.00, is K4,885,000.00.

Exemplary Damages

The plaintiffs’ claim for exemplary damages is being made primarily against the State and not the First Defendant, who may or may no longer be employed in the Police Force. Under s. 12(1) of the Claims By and Against the State Act 1996, however, "[n]o exemplary damages may be awarded against the State unless it appears to the Court that, regardless of the nature of the claim, there has been a breach of Constitution rights so severe or continues as to warrant an award of exemplary damages."

The plaintiffs noted the operation and applicability of s. 12(1) and tried to manoeuvre around it by submitting that the police raid occurred in 1991 and that is when the cause of action accrued, some six years before the Act came into operation. Under the repealed Claims By and Against the State Act, there was no equivalent provision. Therefore, it is submitted, s. 12(1) does not apply in this case.

The plaintiffs then proceeded to rely on the cases of Lagan & 58 Ors v. State,[46] where Injia J.[47] awarded, proportionate to the respective extent of loss, various amounts for each plaintiff ranging from K50, K200 and K300, and; Peter Kamane & 66 Ors v. Police and State,[48] where Kapi DCJ (as he then was) awarded K600 per plaintiff in exemplary damages. I note however that both Apa & Ors v. Police & State[49] and Lagan & 58 Ors v. State[50] were decided prior to the Act coming into operation. I note also that in Peter Kamane & 66 Ors v. Police and State[51], the award of exemplary damages was fixed by consent of the parties. Consequently, s. 12(1) was never raised.

I further note the case of Kim Pai v. State,[52] where Jalina, J. awarded K5,000.00 as exemplary damages each for the plaintiffs in 2002. Kirriwom, J. also awarded K2,000.00 as exemplary damages for each plaintiff in Tony Wemin & or v. State[53] in 2001. But again, in both cases, the applicability of s. 12(1) was not discussed, probably because it was not raised.

My view, therefore, of s. 12(1) is that, as a general rule, no award of exemplary damages may be made against the State. The only exception to this general rule is where "there has been a breach of Constitution rights so severe or continues as to warrant an award of exemplary damages". The breach in question must not only be "so severe" or "continues", but must also "warrant an award of exemplary damages". In practice, these requirements are inseparable. Where this situation exists, the Court should award exemplary damages against somebody, and the State, with the combined operation of s. 12(1) and the Wrongs (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, is not exonerated from such liability. It should be held responsible especially when identifying policemen is a difficulty in most police raids.

I note the strings of past decisions desirous of personally requiring defaulting servants or agents to pay exemplary damages but the public demand for greater accountability, which must begin from the chief executive level, merits a shift towards penalizing the State, which is supposed to be, but has not been, in control of its servants and agents. I will continue with this point in due course.

On the matter in question, on the facts of this case, it does not make any difference whether s. 12(1) is applicable or not. At common law, the object of the award of exemplary damages is to punish; to deter or to demonstrate to the defendant the community’s or the court’s stern disapproval of the conduct in question. Consequently, the grant of exemplary damages is usually dependent on the seriousness of each wrongdoing. That is the very route this case will follow if it is subjected to the operation of s. 12(1). Accordingly, for the sake of uniformity and consistency, I propose to consider this case against the requirements of s. 12(1).

This means that the real issue is whether there has been a "breach of the Constitution rights so severe or continues as to warrant an award of exemplary damages". The severity of breach of constitutional rights in question may be determined firstly by examining the facts of the case; and, secondly, by taking into account the level of disapproval or acceptance by the public at large in relation to the frequency of the nature of constitutional breach in question.

In that regard, nearly 1000 people were affected in this police raid. The mode of operation was to destroy and burn houses, personal effects and property generally. The idea was to deprive the plaintiffs of their homes and possessions, presumably, in the same way as the bank employee who lost his TV set. Men, women, mothers, old people (some of whom have since died), children, babies, were deliberately subjected to sufferings they do not deserve. If this was an act of God, it would have qualified as a National disaster, thereby, warranting assistance from the State and donor agencies within and abroad. Unfortunately, the plaintiffs were left to fend for themselves as if they deserved to be treated in such manner.

I have not heard of a police raid as bad as this where nearly 1000 innocent lives were rendered homeless within hours of organized burning and destruction, which are themselves serious criminal acts, by those whom we look upon for protection, all because of a TV set. The person allegedly responsible for the theft of the TV set was killed in retaliation over the police raid. How did the First Defendant and his policemen feel during and after the event? What happened can only be described as irrational, unwarranted, unchristian, un-Melanesian and totally inhumane. This is one of the worst, if not the worst, cases of the ongoing disregard for the rights of other people.

It is obvious that the police raid was not a spontaneous or spur of the moment exercise of power. The ultimatum and the extent of destruction demonstrate that the police raid was institutionally planned and institutionally executed. It was code-named. The policemen concerned were under the direct care, command and control of the First Defendant; and, all of them were ultimately agents and or servants of the State in pursuit of a corporately-sanctioned operation. Police raids and operations have become institutionalized and have become a growing culture amongst the law enforcement agencies in this country, particularly the police force.

The State must take responsibility and account for the continuous flagrant disregard for the people’s constitutional rights and freedoms. In the modern world, the ultimate executive head of the State, such as the Prime Minister, the Police Minister, and the Commissioner of Police, are immediately called to account for serious breaches of the people’s fundamental rights and freedoms in the hands of servants and agents of the State.

We have heard about the throwing overboard of illegal immigrants in Australia; and how John Howard has been continuously called upon to account for it. We have heard of the mistreatment of detainees at the Abu Ghraib detention centre in Iraq; and, the controversy that led to the resignation of the immediate-past Governor General of Australia. This is what accountability entails. Accountability is effective only if it begins with leadership, from the chief executive level to the very junior servant. Accountability is not effective in the converse. When leaders at the highest level are not made to account for the wrongdoings of their subordinate institutions and servants, the culture of abuse is condoned and connived; and the culture becomes seemingly acceptable despite all the constitutional provisions to the contrary.

As I write this decision, I discover an ally in Sir Arnold Amet[54]. In his National Newspaper article[55] Sir Arnold decried human rights abuse in the following manner:

"To the members of the law enforcement agencies who perpetrate these ongoing unlawful acts, and behave in unlawful ways, do you pause to consider the consequences of your actions?

"Do you think at all that you are violating the very laws that you have sworn to uphold and enforce? Do you consider that citizens will not respect your office and institution if you are violating their basic human rights? Do you think that the good work that you and others have done for a long time can become undone by one act of indiscipline and unlawful conduct?

"Do you pause to think that as a result of your unlawful action the state will be held liable to pay large compensation to the victims of your unlawful action? Do you pause to think that it is wrong and unlawful what you are about to do? Many of these wrong behaviours are so basic and obvious. People are not thinking enough about the consequences of their actions.

"These are all issues individuals and corporate and institutional leaders have to think seriously about. When we pause and consider them, we immediately realize the consequences of those actions. They are wrong. Again, as I said before, two wrongs can never make right. It is in making sure we get the small things and habits right that bigger good results will follow easier. This is so basic.

"If the answers to these questions demonstrate without any doubt that the actions are plainly wrong, and you who engage in these behaviour and the institutional leaders know that they are wrong, then why are you not doing enough to stop these behaviour.

"Why are leaders, from the highest level down not able to put a stop to this continuing violation of human rights? It is time to pose some very direct provocative questions of responsibility and accountability.

"Ministers and chief executive leaders and managers who are responsible for these institutions, why are you not able to address these issues immediately to arrest this tidal wave.

"Why is it not possible, responsible Ministers for Justice, Internal Security, Defence, Correctional Services and the senior executive administrators and law officers, Attorney-General, State Solicitor, Solicitor-General, Police Commissioner, Commander of the Defence Forces, Correctional Services Commissioner and other Central Agency Coordinating Committee senior executives, to meet periodically as a matter of national importance and direct the subordinate commanders and officers to instil discipline and immediately render accountability for some very blatant abuses that are going to result in the state continuing to pay out damages we cannot afford?

"Leaders have to think more and more intelligently and exercise more responsibility and accountability for departments under their supervision."(my emphasis)

I agree with Sir Arnold. It is inconceivable that no lesson has been learnt from payments of huge bills in the past; and it is sad that the end to constitutional rights infringements is not yet in sight. The courts, for obvious reasons, have generally been generous to the State in the past on exemplary damages, but the continuous flagrant disregard for fundamental rights and freedoms is contrary to all forms of public good and public interest. In my view, therefore, the courts should begin to appropriately consider exemplary damages as one of the means to address the continuous disregard for the rights of our fellow citizens.

For the foregoing reasons, I am satisfied that the nature of constitutional rights infringement in this case is very serious. This case is one of the many instances of constitutional rights infringements in the hands of police. The extent of burning and destruction, including the killing of Palma Okuk, over a TV set, warrants an award of exemplary damages to be made. I will award exemplary damages as a punishment, as a deterrent and as a warning to the police force and the State that such conduct cannot be tolerated in a democratic society such as ours and something practicable just have to be immediately done about it.

I have been asked to award K5,000.00 in exemplary damages for each plaintiff. As there are 977 plaintiffs, a total of K4,885,000.00 is, thus, sought. The individual award of K5,000.00 is already within the top range of related past awards. The sheer number of the plaintiffs has significantly increased the total award. In the given situation, the plaintiffs’ method of calculating exemplary damages is inherently flawed; and, faces the danger of being struck down for producing an excessive outcome.

It has to be emphasized that exemplary damages is not compensation. The plaintiffs have already been awarded special and general damages. Those are the remedies or compensation for their injuries and losses as a result of the police raid. Exemplary damages is designed to punish; to deter or to demonstrate to the defendant the community’s or the court’s strong disapproval of the wrongdoing in question. The award of exemplary damages targets the defendant, not the plaintiff who, as the successful party, is merely the most legitimate person in the whole world to benefit from the windfall.

Accordingly, in assessing exemplary damages, the awards of special and general damages that were expected to be made and have now been made should be taken into account. They are compensatory in nature but, from the defendant’s viewpoint, they, to a certain degree, overlap into the realm of deterrence and punishment. Thus, without care, an award of exemplary damages could be perceived as an unjust windfall.

Consistent with the object of the award, therefore, instead of initially fixing individual figures against each plaintiff, having regard to, among others, the serious nature of the events of 29 May 1991, including the killing of Palma Okuk; the society’s level of disapproval; and the other awards I have made, I propose to fix a global award and will naturally have such sum distributed amongst the plaintiffs.

In all the circumstances, therefore, I am of the view that an award of around K2,500,000.00 would be appropriate. The suggested figure, comparative to what the plaintiffs requested for, is still substantial but, with the appropriate response, I sincerely hope that such high award would immediately generate the appropriate corporate will to be practically serious about constitutional rights issues, which hopefully would ultimately save the State from losing so much more in future. We all look forward to that day, do not we? Individually, therefore, I award K2,560.00 in exemplary damages for each plaintiff, which adjusts the global award slightly higher to K2,501,120.00.

Interests

I will further award interest at eight per cent per annum in favour of the plaintiffs which is calculable from the date of filing of the proceedings. Such interest will presently be ascertained from the date of filing of the originating process to the date of judgment. The plaintiffs may pursue further interest payment which depends on when the judgment is settled.

Costs and disbursements

For costs, the plaintiffs have, as of 23 June 2001, estimated K300,000.00 as their party-party costs taking into account time spent on the following, but not limited to, including disbursements incurred:

• in reviewing the entire correspondence files and the Court documents folder including engrossing and drafting the affidavits and attending to the swearing of those affidavits;
• on various personal and telephone attendances and interviews on the 977 plaintiffs;
• in attending and applying for default judgment on 17 December 2001 including all other interlocutory applications seeking directions;
• engaging town agents in Mt Hagen, Kunai Lawyers;
• in getting the matter ready for trial for assessment of damages; and
• in researching and compiling case law in preparing this submission;
  

I will award the estimated cost in favour of the plaintiffs which, if not agreed, shall be taxed. Any costs incurred after 23 June 2004 is also awarded on the same basis which may be pursued by the plaintiffs in the usual manner.

The defendants should also meet the plaintiffs’ disbursements. Disbursements include massive photocopying costs, airfares between Kundiawa, Mt. Hagen and Port Moresby, accommodation at hotels, hire cars, valuer’s costs, and so on. The plaintiffs, as at 23 June 2004, estimated their disbursements at K40,000.00 which is awarded accordingly. Any disbursements incurred after 23 June 2004 shall be pursued in the usual way.

Plaintiffs’ Total Claim

(a) Special Damages K 2,044,647.00
(b) General Damages/Constitutional Breach K 4,885,000.00
(c) Exemplary Damages K 2,501,120.00

(d) Interests as at 26 August 2004 K 4,754,140.08

Subtotal One K14,184,907.08

(e) Estimated costs as at 23 June 2004 K 300,000.00
(f) Estimated Disbursements as at 23 June 2004 K 40,000.00

Subtotal Two K 340,000.00

Grand Total K14,524,907.08

Judgment and orders accordingly.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Lawyer for the plaintiffs : Posman Kua & Aisi Lawyers
Lawyer for the defendants : Solicitor-General

FIRST SCHEDULE

TABLE ONE

FIRST PLAINTIFFS
Name of Deceased Plaintiff	Name of Person to Substitute	Relation to Deceased	Date of Death
Andrew Kunma Plaintiff No. 4	Kamayagl Siwi Ongan	Son	November 2002
Dilu Kewandi Plaintiff No. 18	Palma Goka	Son	2001
Kawage Kamis Plaintiff No. 42	John Kamb Kawage	Son	August 2002
Kawage Korugl Plaintiff No. 43	Ambu Ku	Wife	2001
Korugl Mondo Plaintiff No. 52	Ninsul Mondo	Wife	2001
Kunglame Kawage Plaintiff No. 56	Pusi Peter	Brother	August 2002
Miugle Naur Plaintiff No. 67	Joe Miugle	Son	2 May 2003
Moses Uga Plaintiff No. 77	Selly Kugla	Wife	1998
Mujua Korugl Plaintiff No. 78	Kiak Korugl	Wife	December 2002
Ongugo Degemba Plaintiff No. 81	Kutne Ongugo	Son	2000
Philip Kaman Plaintiff No. 89	Steven Kaman	Son	1999
Tom Kawage Plaintiff No. 99	Kerry Tom	Son	2002
Waim Ongugo Plaintiff No. 107	Ongugo Waim	Son	14 March 2003

TABLE TWO

SECOND PLAINTIFFS – WIVES OF FIRST PLAINTIFFS
Name of Deceased Plaintiff	Name of Person to Substitute	Relation to Decease	Date of Death
Kiak Au Plaintiff No. 10	Mondo Au	Son	1995
Kombusi Dilu Plaintiff No. 18	Waine Dilu	Son	2001
Watna Kutne Plaintiff No. 63	Saina Kutne	Daughter	February 2003
Aknis Siwi Plaintiff No. 94	Siwi Okuk	Son	2000
Un Merry Tola Plaintiff No. 98	Apa Tola	Son	January 2003
Ongugo Kawage Plaintiff No. 17	Wari Jack Ongugo	Brother	1 September 2003
Palma Okuk Plaintiff No. 94	Siwi Okuk	Brother	1991
Marka Gioven Plaintiff No. 101	Tony Gioven	Father	1992

TABLE THREE

FOURTH PLAINTIFFS
Name of Deceased Plaintiff	Name of Person to Substitute	Relation to Deceased	Date of Death
Waim Hugo Plaintiff No. 10	Maine Hugo	Wife	April 2003
Gagma Mond Plaintiff No. 14	Peter Gagma	Son	1993
Siwi Kianuga Plaintiff No. 39	Kono Siwi	Daughter	July 2001
Miuge Wau Plaintiff No. 50	John Miuge	Son	September 2000
Mu Degemba Plaintiff No. 66	Druagle Mu	Wife	1997

TABLE FOUR

FIFTH PLAINTIFFS – WIVES OF FOURTH PLAINTIFFS
Name of Deceased Plaintiff	Name of Person to Substitute	Relation to Deceased	Date of Death
Dama Gagma Plaintiff No. 14	Peter Gagma	Son	1997

TABLE FIVE

FIFTH PLAINTIFFS – ADULT DEPENDENTS OF FOURTH PLAINTIFFS
Name of Deceased Plaintiff	Name of Person to Substitute	Relation to Deceased	Date of Death
Gena Kindagl Kawage Plaintiff No. 6	Yokondo Kawage	Grandson	2001
Estha Ugo Plaintiff No. 10	Gend Waim	Son	1999
Mirr Endy Plaintiff No. 33	Onguglo Endikan	Son	2000
Yokondo Ongugo Plaintiff No. 40	Peter Togai	Son	1992
Kum Ongugo Plaintiff No. 40	Kai Togai	Son	1993

SECOND SCHEDULE

SYNCHRONIZED TABLE 1 (First Plaintiffs and their Dependants ie. Second and Third Plaintiffs

No.	First Plaintiffs	Second Plaintiffs		Third Plaintiffs (Infant Dependants)	Special Damages
		Wives (Column 2)	Adult Dependents (Column 3)		As claimed by First Plaintiff	As assessed by Valuer
1	Alphones Siwi Koglua	Tangagene	Darie (d) Kokua (s) Danambo (s)	Gigbai(s) – 14yrs Ambunik(d) – 12yrs Marian(d) – 6yrs	30,670	8,870
2	Aini Mond	(Single)	-	-	28,449	9,090
3	Andikan Yambo	Kuma	Toka (d)	Julian(d) – 18yrs Gere(s) – 10yrs Peter(s) – 6yrs Andrew(s) – 4yrs	29,960	14,390
4	Andrew Kunma (Andrew Kunma died in November 2002. Affidavit filed by Son – Kamayagl Siwi Ongan)	Ongan	Peter (s)	Big Monita(d) – 11yrs Kamayagl(s) – 8yrs		10,870
5	Anton Kunduane	Moro	-	Peter Kumo(s) – 16yrs Pau Vero(d) – 12yrs	17,270	5,750

Sub Total

K106,349.00

K48,970.00

No.	First Plaintiffs	Second Plaintiffs			Third Plaintiffs (infant dependents)	Special Damages
		Wives (Column 2)	Adult Dependents (Column 3)			As claimed by First Plaintiff		As Assessed by Valuer
6	Apa Grai	Quick	Anna(d)	Mary Kambu(d) - 15yrs Susan Kambu(d) -14yrs Kumuno Kambu(s) – 11yrs Moses Kambu(s) – 7yrs Bugande Kambu(d) – 11yrs Angnes Kambu(d) – 5yrs		26,330	4,980
7	Apa Kagl	Sisiya	John(s)	Dakan Apa(d) – 11yrs		30,688	9,890
8	Apa Mokono	Wero	Akita(d)	Betty Apa(d) – 3yrs Kon Apa(d) – 6 months		39,648	26,950
9	Apa Tola	Maria	Womande(d)	Pius Tola(s) – 19yrs Magret Tola(d) – 18yrs Suyare Tola(s) – 6yrs		35,220	37,530
10	Au Mondo	Kiak (died in 1995. Affidavit filed by Mondo Au)	-	Betty Au(d) – 20yrs Las Au(s) – 19yrs		23,810	8,860
11	Baundo Kamayagl (Baundo Kamayagl died in 1999. Wife Nin Kamayagl has sworn Affidavit on behalf of the family)	Nin	Kama(s)	Womade Baundo(d) –12yrs			3,950
12	Baundo Mugono	Akba	Kega(s)	Nanadai Baundo(s) – 19yrs Kawage Baundo(s) – 20yrs		19,325	4,820

Total	K175,021.00	K 96,980.00
Balance c/forward	K106,349.00	K 48,970.00
Sub Total	K281,370.00	K145,950.00

No.	First Plaintiffs	Second Plaintiffs		Third Plaintiffs (Infant Dependants)	Special Damages
		Wives (Column 2)	Adult Dependents (Column 3)		As claimed by First Plaintiff	As assessed by Valuer
13	Baundo Ongugo	Gundu	Wambu(s)	Ninmogo Baundo(d) – 16yrs Ketty Moro Baundo(d) –12yrs Kilan Baundo(d) – 6yrs Kai Baundo(d) – 4yrs Luta Baundo(s) – 2yrs	22,680	5,380
14	Baundo Ulka	Single	-	-	11,500	20,550
15	Be Kunma	Maria	-	Tresa Woglai(d) – 2yrs	21,150	12,370
16	Bomba Goka	Guwo	Margeret(d) Timothy(s)	Waine Bomba(s) – 9yrs Bobi Bomba(d) – 15yrs	33,543	16,100
17	David Kawage	Daka	Andeken(s) Ongugo(s) (Died on 1/9/03) (Affidavit filed by Wari Jack Onguglo)	(s) – 16yrs Ogugo David(s) – 5yrs Bomai David(s) – 2yrs	30,540	17,870
18	Dilu Kewandi (Dilu Kewandi Died in 2001. Affidavit sworn by Palma Goka)	Kombusi (Kombusi died in 2001. Affidavit sworn by Waine Dilu)	Toka(d)	Toka Dilu(d) – 18yrs		7,420
19	Gende Waim	Femmig	-	-	19,871	6,430
20	Gevi David Ongugo	Kondaug	-	Givi Ongugo(s)	21,896	7,480

	Total	K161,180.00	K 93,600.00
	Balance c/forward	K281,370.00	K145,950.00
Sub Total		K442,550.00	K239,550.00

No.	First Plaintiffs	Second Plaintiffs		Third Plaintiffs (Infant Dependants)	Special Damages
		Wives (Column 2)	Adult Dependents (Column 3)		As claimed by First Plaintiff	As assessed by Valuer
21	Gibson Siune	Elesabert	Kiak(d) Elsie(d)	Kegu Siune(d) – 16yrs John Siune(s) – 14yrs Dominic(s) – 12yrs Pauline(d) – 8yrs	31,444	11,690
22	Gigmai Kawage	Kekene	Mary(d) James(s)	Rose Gigmai(d) – 18yrs Miriam Gigmai(d) – 9yrs	22,208	8,060
23	Gigmai Teka	-	-	(absent) – 10yrs (absent) – 8yrs	21,054	8,970
24	Goga Mond	Ruth	-	Stella Goka(d) – 10yrs Okuk Mondo Goka(s) – 8yrs Roney Goka(s) – 6yrs	53,600	27,600
25	Goiye Mond	Gruno	Peter(s) Naiyo(s)	Regina Goiye(d) Amos Goiye(s)	34,649	9,580
26	Gola Au	Bomabu	-	Mondo Goka(d) – 17yrs Korug Goka(s) – 4yrs	26,296	17,060
27	Ire Siwi	Wendy	-	Kama Eri(s) – 10yrs Rose Eri(d) – 13yrs Robert Eri(s) – 5yrs	25,000	32,410

Total	K214,251.00	K115,370.00
Balance c/forward	K442,550.00	K239,550.00
Sub Total	K656,801.00	K354,920.00

No.	First Plaintiffs	Second Plaintiffs		Third Plaintiffs (Infant Dependants)	Special Damages
		Wives (Column 2)	Adult Dependents (Column 3)		As claimed by First Plaintiff	As assessed by Valuer
28	Iungumuno Kawage	Guwo	Moro(d) Imbake(s)	Magi Yugomuno(s) – 18yrs Dakles Yugomuno(s) – 15yrs Uru Yugomuno(d) – 7rs Dedi Yugomuno(s) – 10yrs Mami Yugomuno(d) –6yrs	30,110	4,610
29	Jack Kawage	Brikita	-	Lucy Jack(d) – 12yrs	24,289	18,810
30	Joe Andy Umba	Geturuth	Me(d) Magre(d) Ambeke(d)	Numambo Umba(s) – 20yrs Kunduwane Umba(s) –17yrs Andy Umba(s) – 14yrs	35,898	17,010
31	John Arba	Bagka	Markus(s) Bonny(s)	Takai Arba(s) – 20yrs Yaltom Arba(s) – 17yrs Dini Arba(d) – 14yrs	23,124	9,150
32	John Kamb	Kongur	-	Wena Kambu – 8yrs	24,450	7,110
33	John Ulka	Elsie	Dina(d) Rollx(s)	Glanda Ulka(d) – 10yrs	27,380	24,980
34	Kagl Kutne	Rose	Robbert(s) Quina(d)	Estina Kagl(d) – 17rs Weli Kagl(d) – 13yrs Presila Kagl(d) – 9yrs Gikmai Kagl(s) – 6yrs	37,895	9,840

Total	K203,146.00	K 91,510.00
Balance c/forward	K646,801.00	K354,920.00
Sub Total	K849,947.00	K446,430.00

No.	First Plaintiffs	Second Plaintiffs		Third Plaintiffs (Infant Dependants)	Special Damages
		Wives (Column 2)	Adult Dependents (Column 3)		As claimed by First Plaintiff	As assessed by Valuer
35	Kagl Tongia	Angla	Sie(s) Bekre(d)	-	23,488	3,950
36	Kai Ire	Maria	Siwi(s)	Wagl Kai(s) – 15yrs Magret Kai(d) – 4yrs	19,300	4,480
37	Kama Kawage	Monnicka	-	Ere Kama(s) – 14yrs Dan Kama(d) – 13yrs	24,295	3,710
38	Kandige Mokono	Jully	-	Rose Kadige(d) – 8yrs Kangi Kadige(d) – 6yrs Mandala Kadige(d) – 3yrs	15,800	3,720
39	Kathy Ugo	Kaki	-	Pais Kaki(s) – 6yrs Karl Kaki(s) – 4yrs Sera Kaki(d) – 2yrs	19,530	6,160
40	Kawage Andikan	Kama	-	Ruben Kawage(s) – 18yrs Sie Kawage(s) – 14yrs Koglwa Kawage(s) – 12yrs	28,650	12,580
41	Kandige Mokono	?	-	-	(No Affidavit filed. Duplicate Claim)	10,810
42	Kawage Kamis (Kawage Kamis died in August 2002. Affidavit sworn by John Kamb Kawage)	Kunum	Erkina(d) Mary(d) John(s)	-		6,750
				Total	K131,063.00	K 52,160.00
				Balance c/forward	K849,947.00	K446,430.00
				Sub Total	K981,010.00	K498,590.00
43	Kawage Korugl (Kawage Korugl died in 2001. Affidavit filed by Ambu Ku)	Ku	Rosesi(d) Peter(s)	Ku Dan Kawage(d) – 7yrs		6,130
44	Kawage Siure	Moro	-	Maria Kawage(d) – 12yrs Meryn Kawage(d) – 5yrs Kutne Kawage(d) – 2yrs Lucy Kawage(d) – 1yr	29,878	16,610
45	Kawage Witne	T. Dareye	A. Kausage(s)	Siwi Kawage(s) – 16yrs Paul Kawage(d) – 13yrs Witne Kawage(s) – 9yrs Tine Kawage(s) – 5yrs Kum Kawage(d) – 5yrs	20,300	15,180
46	Kianuga Kutne	Dengel	Kenibe(s)	Quina George(d) – 7yrs Boyd Kutne(s) – 5yrs	22,856	4,540
47	Kindagl Siwi	Gaglum	Magere(d) Ongan(s)	-	23,351	11,330
48	Kogua Siure	Moro	-	Saina Koglua(d) – 16yrs Moro Koglua(d) – 8yrs Michael Koglua(s) – 5yrs Guma Koglua(d) – 3yrs Darie Koglua(d) – 3yrs	26,280	19,120

Total	K 122,665.00	K 72,910.00
Balance c/forward	K 981,010.00	K498,590.00
Sub Total	K1,103,675.00	K571,500.00

No.	First Plaintiffs	Second Plaintiffs		Third Plaintiffs (Infant Dependants)	Special Damages
		Wives (Column 2)	Adult Dependents (Column 3)		As claimed by First Plaintiff	As assessed by Valuer
49	Komdi Kawage Kuno	Dini Kuragl	Brown(s) John(s)	Kekene Kawage(d) – 20yrs Kidagl Kawage(s) – 19yrs Peter Kawage(s) – 15yrs	40,970	16,890
50	Kondo Waim	Kum	Waim(s)	Kam Kondo(d) – 19yrs Kuno Kondo(s) – 17yrs Koniga Kondo(d) – 15yrs Joshua Kondo(s) – 6yrs	21,590	5,090
51	Konma Ulka	Kiak	-	-	12,935	7,990
52	Korugl Mondo (Korugl Mondo died in 2001. Affidavit filed by Ninsul Mondo)	Ninsul	-	Mary Korug(d) – 16yrs		6,110
53	Koruk Kombage	Dan	Palma(s) Pingig(d) Esta(d)	-	26,124	15,190
54	Kuake Joseph	Gabrela	-	Gon Agil Joe(d) – 12yrs Kua Joseph(s) – 10yrs Tagagane Joseph(d) – 8yrs	20,442	5,100
55	Kuambo Mondo	Ambu Nik	Peter(s) Kumo(d) Goiye(s)	Nancy Guambo(d) – 6yrs Tomy Guambo(s) – 4yrs	29,580	11,140

Total	K 151,641.00	K 67,510.00
Balance c/forward	K1,103,675.00	K571,500.00
Sub Total	K1,255,316.00	K639,010.00

No.	First Plaintiffs	Second Plaintiffs		Third Plaintiffs (Infant Dependants)	Special Damages
		Wives (Column 2)	Adult Dependents (Column 3)		As claimed by First Plaintiff	As assessed by Valuer
57	Kuglame Numabo	Gumbug	-	Apa Kolkia(s) – 15yrs	22,559	4,850
58	Kuina Korugl	David	Korugl(s)	-	28,634	16,900
59	Kuman Mondo	Singede	-	John Kuman(s) – 12yrs Kekene Kuman(d) – 10yrs Mark Kuman(s) – 7yrs Daka Kuman(d) – 5yrs	29,500	20,820
60	Kuman Witne	Kiak	-	Okuk Kuman(s) – 6yrs	15,040	3,840
61	Kombulo Ire	Kiak	Siwi(s) Kagl(s)	Teine Kumbugo(s) – 15yrs Ti Kumbugo(s) – 13yrs Gande Kumbugo(s) – 11yrs	24,450	4,220
62	Kunduane Siwi	Daka	Siwi(s) Dan(d)	-	16,800	6,890
63	Kutne Kianuga	Watna (Died in Feb 2003. Affidavit sworn by Saina Kutne)	Gagma(s) Ruth(d)	Togia Gagma K.(s) – 12yrs Michael Gagma K.(s) – 8yrs	26,538	4,560
64	Mark Kagl	Mandela	Kirai(d)	Goiye Gande(s) – 19yrs Tally Kagl(s) – 16yrs Ester Kagl(d) – 6yrs Kaglkawage(s) – 4yrs	28,150	11,650

Total	K 191,671.00	K 73,730.00
Balance c/forward	K1,255,316.00	K639,010.00
Sub Total	K1,446,987.00	K712,740.00

No.	First Plaintiffs	Second Plaintiffs		Third Plaintiffs (Infant Dependants)	Special Damages
		Wives (Column 2)	Adult Dependents (Column 3)		As claimed by First Plaintiff	As assessed by Valuer
65	Mathew Numambo	Mariana	Palma(s)	Kuwake Numambo(s) – 18yrs Agnes Numambo(d) – 8yrs	23,620	13,040
66	Michael Kabilo	Mary	-	Robert Michael(s) – 16yrs Jain Michael(d) – 9yrs	29,836	12,940
67	Miugle Naur (Miugle Naur died in May 2003. Affidavit filed by Joe Miugle)	Maim	Kauna(d)	Au Mark Miuge(s) – 13yrs Algua Miuge(s) – 10yrs		7,950
68	Mondo Au	Omme	Mareg(s)	Teke Mondo(d) – 10yrs Katrina Mondo(d) – 7yrs Julian Mondo(d) – 5yrs	20,870	5,670
69	Mokono Dilu	Mog	Kor(d) Siune(s)	Balka Mokuno(d) – 16yrs	26,480	22,370
70	Mondo Gigmai	Anna	Gundu(d)	Toka Mondo(d) – 12yrs Siwi Palma(s) – 8yrs Nombri Philip(s) – 6yrs Ambane Mondo(d) – 3yrs Ambuyan Mondo(d) – 1yr	32,546	12,760
71	Mondo Goiye	Kangi	Siune(s) Tine(s)	Kama Mondo(s) – 12yrs Samuel Mondo(s) – 8yrs Gonbo Mondo(d) – 5yrs	31,875	15,010

Total	K165,227.00	K89,740.00
Balance c/forward	K1,446,987.00	K712,740.00
Sub Total	K1,612,214.00	K802,480.00

No.	First Plaintiffs	Second Plaintiffs		Third Plaintiffs (Infant Dependants)	Special Damages
		Wives (Column 2)	Adult Dependents (Column 3)		As claimed by First Plaintiff	As assessed by Valuer
72	Mondo Kagl	Akum	Kua(s) Monicka(d) Rose(d)	-	31,765	15,160
73	Mondo Kamayagl	Kiak Ambu	Moro(d) Mondo(s)	Gonbo Kawage(d) – 10yrs Guambo Kawage(s) – 8yrs Wamugl Kawage(s) – 7rs	23,100	6,790
74	Mondo Kuambo	Kuga	-	Bakme Mondo(s) – 4yrs Gru Mondo(d) – 2yrs	21,618	7,260
75	Mondo Palma	Dara	Tonny(s) Kum(d) Toka(d) Kua(s)	Peter Mondo(s) – 10yrs	50,253	27,970
76	Mondo Palma	Elsie	-	Marian Mondo(d) – 15yrs Rex Mondo(s) – 13yrs Niki Mondo(d) – 10yrs Mathew Mondo(s) – 8yrs	50,145	27,910
77	Moses Uga (Moses Uga died in 1999. Affidavit filed by Selly Kugla)	Selly	Mary(d) Tanda(s)	Margret Moses(d) – 8yrs		6,400

Total	K 176,881.00	K 91,490.00
Balance c/forward	K1,612,214.00	K802,480.00
Sub Total	K1,789,095.00	K893,970.00

No.	First Plaintiffs	Second Plaintiffs		Third Plaintiffs (Infant Dependants)	Special Damages
		Wives (Column 2)	Adult Dependents (Column 3)		As claimed by First Plaintiff	As assessed by Valuer
78	Mujua Korugl (Mujua Korugl died in December 2002. Affidavit filed by Kiak Korugl)	Kiak	Ambane(d) Korugl(s) Kawage(s) Gene(d)	Betty Mugua(d) – 8yrs Jerry Mugua(s) – 7yrs Kerolin Mugua(d) – 6yrs		14,710
79	Nime Siwi John	Moro	Kunduwane(s) Peter(s)	Marian Nime(d) – 10yrs Kaman Nime(s) – 8yrs Thomas Nime(s) – 4yrs	34,568	13,330
80	Mumambo Gabriel	Telke	-	John Numambo(s) – 18yrs Boi Sion Numambo(s) – 16yrs Skita Numambo(d) – 14yrs Numambo Gabriel(s)(jnr) – 10yrs	32,948	13,060
81	Ongugo Degemba (Ongugo Degemba died in 2000. Affidavit filed by Kutne Ongugo)	Kuawake	-	Kutne Ongugo(s) – 14yrs		13,590
82	Palma Goka	Kegai	Iambakey(s)	Michael Palma(s) – 14yrs Komba Palma(s) – 12 yrs Ambane Palma(s) – 10 yrs James Palma(s) – 8yrs	29,409	22,920
83	Pastor Onglo	Kumo	Umba(s) Rambo(s) Kasty(d)	Mary Fuao(d) – 16yrs Teine Fuao(s) – 12yrs Ugo Fuao(s) – 10yrs	28,797	8,870.00

Total	K125,722.00	K86,480.00
Balance c/forward	K1,789,095.00	K893,970.00
Sub Total	K1,914,817.00	K980,450.00

No.	First Plaintiffs	Second Plaintiffs		Third Plaintiffs (Infant Dependants)	Special Damages
		Wives (Column 2)	Adult Dependents (Column 3)		As claimed by First Plaintiff	As assessed by Valuer
84	Pauline Gigmai	Gonbo	Diune(d) Mondo(s) Yogk(d)	Gikmai Pauline(s) – 15yrs Iambake Pauline(s) – 13yrs Agnes Pauline(d) – 10yrs Ande Pauline(s) – 8yrs	36,058	13,330
85	Paul Kawage	Koma	Elly(d) Rose(d) John(s)	Ledet Paul(d) – 8yrs Junior Paul(s) – 6yrs	36,583	14,130
86	Paul Okuk	Bongugul	Stanly(s) Jenet(d) Dan(d)	Lois Paul(d) – 7yrs	26,066	14,570
87	Peter Goka	Gamba	-	Wawa Peter(d) – 5yrs	31,281	21,660
88	Peter Pusi	Yanny	Dara(d) Andy(s)	Onni Pusi(s) – 19yrs Kuman Pusi(s) – 11yrs Susi Pusi(d) – 8yrs	26,305	8,970
89	Philip Kaman (Philip Kaman died in 1999. Affidavit filed by Steven Kaman)	Ambu Wau	Boi Steven(s) Anna(d)	Kaman Philip(s) – 13yrs Magret Philip)d) – 10yrs Boss Philip(d) – 8yrs Kiak Philip(d) – 6yrs		19,000

Total	K156,293.00	K91,660.00
Balance c/forward	K1,914,817.00	K980,450.00
Sub Total	K2,071,110.00	K1,072,110.00

No.	First Plaintiffs	Second Plaintiffs		Third Plaintiffs (Infant Dependants)	Special Damages
		Wives (Column 2)	Adult Dependents (Column 3)		As claimed by First Plaintiff	As assessed by Valuer
90	Philip Yomos	Toka	Gesie(d) Kama(s)	Junior Yomo(s) – 15yrs Tresa Yomo(d) – 13yrs Mondo Yomo(s) – 11yrs Loren Yomo(d) – 9yrs Mark Yomo(s) – 7yrs Akita Yomo(d) – 5yrs	35,857	12,220
91	Robert Kiak	Marry & Wary	-	Rose Robert(d) – 4yrs Wau Robert(s) – 2yrs	35,920	24,870
92	Simakus Palma	Yuwai	Jenet(d) Kiak(d)	Vincent Simakus(s) – 9yrs Jeffry Simakus(s) – 6yrs	25,386	8,040
93	Siwi Kawage	Telke	Sie(s)	-	28,177	18,120
94	Siwi Okuk	Aknis (Died in 2000. Affidavit sworn by Siwi Okuk)	Palma(s) (Died in 1991. Affidavit filed by Siwi Okuk) Siwi(s) Margret(d) Domnick(s)	Okuk Siwi(s) – 6yrs Anna Okus(d) – 3yrs Dominic Okuk(s) –19yrs	32,681	13,700
95	Siwi Nime	Maria	-	Andy Siwi(s) – 18yrs Dala Siwi(d) – 16yrs Robin Siwi(s) – 9yrs Michael Siwi(s) – 6yrs	26,630	5,920

Total	K184,651.00	K82,870.00
Balance c/forward	K2,071,110.00	K1,072,110.00
Sub Total	K2,255,761.00	K1,154,980.00

No.	First Plaintiffs	Second Plaintiffs		Third Plaintiffs (Infant Dependants)	Special Damages
		Wives (Column 2)	Adult Dependents (Column 3)		As claimed by First Plaintiff	As assessed by Valuer
96	Siwi Timothy	Peter Timothy Timmy Timothy	-	Morris Timothy(s) – 19yrs Anna Timothy(d) – 17yrs Graham Timothy(s) – 13yrs Fiona Timothy(d) – 5 yrs	33,750	14,900
97	Teine Boi	Mirigak	John(s)	Cathy Boi(d) – 12yrs	20,895	6,100
98	Tola Tongia	Un Merry (Died in Jan 2003. Affidavit sworn by Apa Tola)	-	Ambuwake Tola(d) – 21yrs	20,106	10,090
99	Tom Kawage (Tom Kawage died in 2002. Affidavit filed by Kerry Tom)	Ninmogo	Perry(s) Mirem(d)	Tom Peri(s) – 4yrs		6,430
100	Tom Kutne	Dinny	Wero(d) Mary(d)	Ruth Kutne(d) – 12yrs Waipe Kutne(d) – 10yrs Grais Kutne(d) – 7yrs	29,490	18,820
101	Tony Gioven	Kego (Died in 1993. Affidavit sworn by Tony Gioven)	Marka(d) (Died in 1992. Affidavit sworn by Tony Gioven) Nessie(d) Andy(s)	Jacklyn Gioven(d) – 15yrs Danogo Gioven(s) – 5yrs Weahau Gioven(s) – 3yrs	25,080	5,240
102	Uga Degemba	Geregambu	Tine(s) Reggina(d) Gaina(d)	Ian Uga(s) – 15yrs Sera Uga(d) – 8yrs Gikmai Uga(s) – 6yrs Siune Uga(s) – 4yrs	26,859	5,110

Total	K 156,180.00	K 66,690.00
Balance c/forward	K2,255,761.00	K1,154,980.00
Sub Total	K2,411,941.00	K1,221,670.00

No.	First Plaintiffs	Second Plaintiffs		Third Plaintiffs (Infant Dependants)	Special Damages
		Wives (Column 2)	Adult Dependents (Column 3)		As claimed by First Plaintiff	As assessed by Valuer
103	Ugo Ongugo	Munake	Thomas(s) Ruth(d) Sera(d)	Ongugo Ugo(s) – 18yrs James Ugo(s) – 6yrs	23,491	6,010
104	Ulka Awagl	Mary	Paswik(s) Kondauk(s) Wauga(s)	Big Boy Ulka(s) – 13yrs Awak Ulka(s) – 6yrs Philip Ulka(s) – 4yrs	29,834	11,970
105	Ulka Siwi	Fingig	Jim(s) Christian(s) Siwi(s)	Ambai Ulka(s) – 12yrs Siwi Magua Ulka(s) – 10yrs	32,345	11,540
106	Waim Kondo	Ketty	-	David Waim(s) – 7yrs Moris Waim(s) – 4yrs	20,864	7,110
107	Waim Ongugo (Waim Ongugo died in March 2003. Affidavit filed by Ongugo Waim)	Tom	Mark(s) Peter(s) John(s)	Gariki Ongugo(d) – 7yrs Paias Ongugo(s) – 5yrs Kauga Ongugo(s) – 3yrs		19,200
108	Wau Si’e	Wero	Simon(s) Mondo(s)	Joesepa Wau(d) – 14yrs Moses Wau(s) – 6yrs	25,584	10,190
109	Wesley Goiye*	Ketty	Jennet(d) Mary(d)	Michael Wesly(s) – 12yrs Anna Wesly(d) – 9yrs	22,084	22,000

Total	K 154,202.00	K 88,020.00
Balance c/forward	K2,411,941.00	K1,221,670.00
Sub Total	K2,566,143.00	K1,309,690.00

Plaintiff 109 – Has all receipts of Permanent House.

No.	First Plaintiffs	Second Plaintiffs		Third Plaintiffs (Infant Dependants)	Special Damages
		Wives (Column 2)	Adult Dependents (Column 3)		As claimed by First Plaintiff	As assessed by Valuer
110	Yambo Kawage	Tom	Kawage(s) Philip(s)	Peter Yambo(s) – 9yrs Doli Yambo(d) – 7yrs Miriam Yambo(d) – 5yrs	20,756	14,260

Total	K 20,756.00	K 14,260.00
Balance c/forward	K2,566,143.00	K1,309,690.00
Sub Total	K2,586,899.00	K1,323,950.00
GRAND TOTAL	K2,586,899.00	K1,323,950.00

SYNCHRONIZED TABLE 2: (Fourth Plaintiffs and their Dependants ie. Fifth and Sixth Plaintiffs

No.	Fourth Plaintiffs	Fifth Plaintiffs		Sixth Plaintiffs (Infant Dependants)	Special Damages
		Wives (Column 2)	Adult Dependents (Column 3)		As claimed by First Plaintiff	As assessed by Valuer
1	Umba Siwi	Gundu Umba	-	Kuanduane(m) Ande(m)	28,406	20,890
2	Kogua Numambo Kawage	Anna Dikombuko	-	Kawage(m) Mary(f) Annde(m) Kuglan(f)	37,290	19,210
3	Kagl Apa	Gulka Kagl	Girai Kagl Mondokua Kagl Erkina Kagl Vero Kuman Kagl	Kunum(f)	37,377	21,030
4	Goila Kewande	Ambane Goka	Steven Kepo Maria Kepo Rose Kepo	Julie(f) – 14yrs Helga(f) – 17yrs	25,320	6,590
5	Gongigle Tine	(widow)	Wai Tine Ninmongo Tine	Saina(f) – 9yrs	17,215	5,100
6	Yokondo Kawage	Susan Yokondo	Gena Kindagl (Died in 2001. Affidavit sworn by Yokondo Kawage) Geregl	Giuai(m) – 4yrs Ulgo(m) – 18yrs	34,840	19,370

Sub Total

K180,448.00

K92,190.00

No.	Fourth Plaintiffs	Fifth Plaintiffs		Sixth Plaintiffs (Infant Dependants)	Special Damages
		Wives (Column 2)	Adult Dependents (Column 3)		As claimed by First Plaintiff	As assessed by Valuer
7	Kagl Dope	Parape Kagl	-	Mathew(m) – 1yr Polla(f) – 16yrs Rubo(m) – 6yrs	31,037	14,320
8	Teine Kugame	Paula Tine	-	Apa(m) – 13yrs Wari(f) – 11yrs Posua(m) – 7yrs	20,370	8,120
9	Wena Kerenga	Lusa Wena	Kerenga Josepha	Anna(f) – 15yrs Tanitoi(f) – 11yrs	32,990	15,130
10	Waim Hugo (Waim Hugo died in April 2003. Affidavit filed by Maine Hugo)	Maine Waim	Paias Betty Paul John Anna Estha (Died in 1999. Affidavit sworn by Gend Waim)	John Ulgo(m) –12yrs Mari(m) – 9yrs		5,990
11	Gray Kawage	Tiuke Kau	-	-	20,711	7,030
12	Apa Gerel	Singga Appa	Klen Daina Mogl Lilly Aina Korr	Take(m) – 8yrs Hellen(f) – 10yrs Junior(f) – 13yrs Sie(m) – 6yrs	32,651	8,920

Total	K108,059.00	K 59,510.00
Balance c/forward	K180,448.00	K 92,190.00
Sub Total	K288,507.00	K151,700.00

No.	Fourth Plaintiffs	Fifth Plaintiffs		Sixth Plaintiffs (Infant Dependants)	Special Damages
		Wives (Column 2)	Adult Dependents (Column 3)		As claimed by First Plaintiff	As assessed by Valuer
13	Peter Yer Kawage	(widow)	-	-	21,266	12,430
14	Gagma Mondo (Gagma Mondo died in 1993. Affidavit filed by PeterGagma)	Dama Gagma (Dama Gagma died in 1997. Affidavit sworn by Peter Gagma)	David Peter Kingston Kokas	Julien(f) – 8yrs Job(m) – 6yrs		34,370
15	Dini Goiye	(widow)	-	-	10,780	2,180
16	David Guambo	Egen Mondo David	Guambo Mondo Gene Guambo Joicy Guambo	Guambo(m) – 6yrs	26,494	12,620
17	Luke Yalomba	Pauline Luke	-	Thomas(m) – 6yrs	20,649	9,220
18	Numambo Kawage	Ninmongo Numambo	-	Lucy(f) – 9yrs Moro(f) – 7yrs	29,005	17,570
19	Peter Kunduane	Lucy Peter	-	Siwi(m) – 11yrs Maria(f) – 7yrs Ben(m) – 6yrs	21,210	5,110
20	Endikan Joseph Kawage	Ambai Andikan	Kauna Andikan Anna Andikan	Kauna – 12yrs Soppy – 10yrs Tomana – 8yrs Johnathan – 6yrs	29,889	10,180

Total	K159,293.00	K103,680.00
Balance c/forward	K288,507.00	K151,700.00
Sub Total	K447,800.00	K255,380.00

No.	Fourth Plaintiffs	Fifth Plaintiffs		Sixth Plaintiffs (Infant Dependants)	Special Damages
		Wives (Column 2)	Adult Dependents (Column 3)		As claimed by First Plaintiff	As assessed by Valuer
21	Waas Wau	Miriam Waas	-	Mox’s(m) – 12yrs	18,800	5,380
22	Goiye Boi	Korr Goiye	-		15,820	6,320
23	Yani Kawage	(widow)	-	Kethy(f) – 11yrs	14,000	8,140
24	Kawage Boi	Bonsone Kawage	-	Mondo(m) – 19yrs Olam – 15yrs Sera(f) – 11yrs Wari – 9yrs	(Affidavit Filed)	10,140
25	Kerenga Ongugo	-	-	-	22,486	8,730
26	Ugo Degemba (Haus Man)	-	-	-	63,985	7,400
27	Wamb Yalomba	Dan Wambu	-	Poli Poli(m) – 10yrs	33,635	24,450
28	David Gagma	Susan David	-	-	22,250	19,000
29	Degemba Kapa	(widow)	-	Gidion(m) – 6yrs Thomas(m) – 8yrs	18,170	8,300
30	Thomas Las Au	-	Korugl Ire	Korug(m) – 10yrs	25,105	10,350

Total	K176,651.00	K108,210.00
Balance c/forward	K447,800.00	K255,380.00
Sub Total	K624,451.00	K363,590.00

No.	Fourth Plaintiffs	Fifth Plaintiffs		Sixth Plaintiffs (Infant Dependants)	Special Damages
		Wives (Column 2)	Adult Dependents (Column 3)		As claimed by First Plaintiff	As assessed by Valuer
31	Kawage Takai	Bingo Kawage	Willie Kawage	Agita(f) – 16yrs Jocyphing(f) – 9yrs Kagl(m) – 6yrs	29,054	11,930
32	Peter Kerenga	-	Kolrin Takai Tine Kolkia Kingston Kokas	Kiakambu – 15yrs Dolly(f) – 7yrs Kawage(m) – 6yrs	25,442	5,950
33	Ongugo Endikan	Porike Ongugo	Kapa Ongugo Mirr Endy (Died in 2000. Affidavit filed by Onguglo Endikan)	Kawage(m) – 17yrs Ainna – 12yrs Kugla – 9yrs Kapa – 5yrs	29,431	6,610
34	Kawage Palma	Irai Kawage	-	Watna – 16yrs Palma(m) – 14yrs Mugua – 10yrs Korugyani(m) – 9yrs Ambai – 7yrs	23,784	3,780
35	Mondo Yambokawage	Klen Andikan	-	Maria(f) – 7yrs Wivien(f) – 5yrs	25,625	11,590
36	Ombu Degemba	-	Ugo Ombu Dapol Ombu	-	16,887	6,390

Total	K150,223.00	K46,250.00
Balance c/forward	K624,451.00	K363,590.00
Sub Total	K774,674.00	K409,840.00

No.	Fourth Plaintiffs	Fifth Plaintiffs		Sixth Plaintiffs	Special Damages
		Wives (Column 2)	Adult dependants (Column 3)		As claimed by Fourth Plaintiffs	As assessed by Valuer

37	Frank Waim	Karka Frank Ambai Adikan	-	Greni – 8yrs Maria(f) – 6yrs Joicy(f) – 10yrs	24,555	5,710
38	Kumba Kawage	Theresa Kumba	-	Paul(m) – 11yrs Alex(m) – 9yrs Balpina(f) – 7yrs Jas – 5yrs	24,010	6,680
39	Siwi Kianuga (Siwi Kianuga died in July 2001. Affidavit filed by Kono Siwi)	Saina Siwi	-	-		13,590
40	Peter Togai	Jullie Peter	Yokondo Ongugo (Died in 1992. Affidavit filed by Peter Togai)Kum Yokondo (Died in 1993. Affidavit filed by Kai Togai)Kai Yokondo Ben Yokondo	-	13,533	12,200
41	Peter Takai	Komi Peter	-	Siga – 9yrs Josepin(f) – 19yrs Elizabet(f) – 6yrs	25,029	14,940
42	Waine Dilu	Mary Waine	-	Dilu(m) – 6yrs	22,790	12,830
43	Siune Dilu	Theresa Siune	-	Josepin(f) – 7yrs John(m) – 12yrs	16,240	4,650

Total	K126,157.00	K 57,100
Balance c/forward	K774,674.00	K409,840.00
Sub Total	K900,831.00	K466,940.00

No.	Fourth Plaintiffs	Fifth Plaintiffs		Sixth Plaintiffs (Infant Dependants)	Special Damages
		Wives (Column 2)	Adult Dependents (Column 3)		As claimed by First Plaintiff	As assessed by Valuer
44	John Goka	Mary John Goka	Uru Kewande	Miriam(f) – 12yrs Toka(m) – 9yrs Vero(f) – 7yrs	21,324	5,820
45	Palma Mugua	Estha Palma	-	Jojo(m) – 12yrs Kiak – 10yrs Selly(f) – 19yrs Lisa(f) – 6yrs	23,509	7,560
46	Siwi Ulka	Anna Siwi	Kauna Willie	Balka(f) – 20yrs Poka(m) – 11yrs Mek(m) – 9yrs Dipora(f) – 7yrs Bosuai – 5yrs	25,600	12,480
47	Paul Degemba	Rose Paul	-	Tine(m) – 10yrs Mark(m) – 7yrs	20,588	27,240
48	Raymond Kawage	-	Margaret Ugo Dama Ugo	Dekemba(m) – 7yrs	20,013	9,760
49	Kutne Kiangua (Haus Man)	-	-	-	42,760	6,390

Total	K 153,794.00	K60,250.00
Balance c/forward	K 900,831.00	K466,940.00
Sub Total	K1,054,625.00	K527,190.00

No.	Fourth Plaintiffs	Fifth Plaintiffs		Sixth Plaintiffs (Infant Dependants)	Special Damages
		Wives (Column 2)	Adult Dependents (Column 3)		As claimed by First Plaintiff	As assessed by Valuer
50	Miuge Wau (Miuge Wau died in September 2000. John Miuge to substitute but no Affidavit filed yet)	Mangre Miuge	John Miuge	John(m) – 10yrs Esta(f) – 9yrs		6,810
51	Baundo Kawage	Yani Baundo	Saki Kua	Michael(m)	19,144	7,230
52	Robert Gagma	Lucy Gagma	Mary Gagma Susan Gagma David Gagma	Reigina(f) – 13yrs Dokas(f) – 20yrs Bikboi(m) – 9yrs Samanta(f) – 7yrs	38,280	16,770
53	Gagma Awag	(widow)	-	Kondaul – 20yrs Wauga – 17yrs Poswik – 14yrs Nime – 13yrs	19,239	3,920
54	Kugla Siune	-	Magaret Siune	John(m) – 17yrs Jack(m) – 10yrs Yero(f) – 8yrs Agnes(f) – 6yrs	50,190	71,850

Total	K 126,853.00	K106,580.00
Balance c/forward	K1,054,625.00	K527,190.00
Sub Total	K1,181,478.00	K633,770.00

No.	Fourth Plaintiffs	Fifth Plaintiffs		Sixth Plaintiffs (Infant Dependants)	Special Damages
		Wives (Column 2)	Adult Dependents (Column 3)		As claimed by First Plaintiff	As assessed by Valuer
55	Michael Kombage	Magaret Kombage	Yuanis Brusty Kombage Mogl Brusty Kombage Moro Kombage Josephine Kombage	Jossy – 6yrs Nagason – 8yrs F. Masket – 14yrs Alphonse(m) – 11yrs Sharonlynne(f) – 9yrs	40,600	16,830
56	Charles Au	Kathrina Charles	-	Kiak – 11yrs Mondo – 9yrs Au(m) – 13yrs Betty(f) – 7yrs Linn(f) – 15yrs	26,960	9,090
57	Kaupa Bac Miugle	Ipip Kaupa Bal	Betty Kaupa Eta Kaupa Bos Mirr Kaupa	Miugle(m) – 10yrs	22,283	8,380
58	Joe Goka	-	-	Betty(f) –11yrs	24,030	15,970
59	Ulka Ambane Kagl	Lucy Ambane	John Ambane	Margaret(f) – 7yrs Jessy(f) – 5yrs	Affidavit Filed	7,430
60	Poka Kawagle	-	-	-	11,980	3,480
61	Toka Okuk	(widow)	Palma Toka	-	16,799	6,650

Total	K142,652.00	K67,830.00
Balance c/forward	K1,181,478.00	K633,770.00
Sub Total	K1,324,130.00	K701,600.00

No.	Fourth Plaintiffs	Fifth Plaintiffs		Sixth Plaintiffs (Infant Dependants)	Special Damages
		Wives (Column 2)	Adult Dependents (Column 3)		As claimed by First Plaintiff	As assessed by Valuer
62	Sie Kagl	-	-	Taupe – 12yrs Stanpot(m) – 8yrs Kawage(m) 6yrs	17,190	5,240
63	Pastor Kamem Gena	Elly Kamem	-	Jimm(m) – 13yrs Emma(f) – 11yrs Egness(m) – 8yrs	21,925	7,860
64	Rose Ugo	(widow)	-	-	10,812	4,070
65	David Korugl	Dan David	-	David(m) – 6yrs Junior(m) – 8yrs	23,427	9,310
66	Mu Degemba (Mu Degemba died in 1997. Affidavit filed by Druagle Mu)	Druage Mu	Waim Mu	Kagl(m) – 9yrs		3,640
67	Mondo Kama Palma	Josey Kama	-	-	17,657	10,110
68	Hugo Waim	Rose Hugo	-	-	20,294	8,420
69	Kelly Korugl	Mary Kelly	-	Vero(f) – 12yrs Guina – 10yrs Junior(m) – 8yrs	20,800	10,820

Total	K 132,105.00	K59,470.00
Balance c/forward	K1,324,130.00	K701,600.00
Sub Total	K1,456,235.00	K761,070.00

No.	Fourth Plaintiffs	Fifth Plaintiffs		Sixth Plaintiffs (Infant Dependants)	Special Damages
		Wives (Column 2)	Adult Dependents (Column 3)		As claimed by First Plaintiff	As assessed by Valuer
70	John Bare	Jullien Bare	Sandra John	Talita(f) – 13yrs Kua(m) – 11yrs Doris(f) – 9yrs	27,720	15,010
71	Elizabeth Siune	-	-	-	(Affidavit Filed)	14,400
72	Yani Siune	-	-	-	11,600	4,720
73	Goiye Mondo	-	-	-	18,117	9,150
74	Betty Guambo	-	-	Bobby(m) – 10yrs Tine – 20yrs	(Affidavit Filed)	27,560
75	Betty Pius	-	-	John(m) – 8yrs	19,520	15,710
76	Toka Yambo Kawage	-	-	Clara(f) – 20yrs Mondia(m) – 8yrs Cris(m) – 12yrs	17,175	4,750
77	Maume Togia	-	Dan Maume Kristina Maume	Touinpeter(m) – 12yrs	18,987	4,880
78	Epema Keke	(widow)	-	Jenipa(f) – 15yrs Kelly(m) – 13yrs	17,530	6,060

Total	K130,649.00	K102,240.00
Balance c/forward	K1,456,235.00	K761,070.00
Sub Total	K1,586,884.00	K863,310.00

No.	Fourth Plaintiffs	Fifth Plaintiffs		Sixth Plaintiffs (Infant Dependants)	Special Damages
		Wives (Column 2)	Adult Dependents (Column 3)		As claimed by First Plaintiff	As assessed by Valuer
79	Kua Boi	Druaele Kua	-	-	22,515	11,920
80	Yambo Kawage(Benard)	Tokai Kumo	Kilara Yambo Kawage	Mondo(m) – 16yrs	18,988	6,510
81	Kama Mondo	Toka Mondo	-	Bernard Soa(m) – 14yrs Thresia(f) – 12yrs Lorrein(f) – 9yrs	28,473	18,920
82	Thomas Mondo Siiune	Kito Siune	-	Michael(m) – 7yrs Vero(f) – 5yrs	(Affidavit Filed)	29,990
83	Mondo Gande	-	-	-	20,779	17,230

Total	K90,755.00	K84,570.00
Balance c/forward	K1,586,884.00	K863,310.00
Sub Total	K1,677,639.00	K947,880.00
GRAND TOTAL	K1,677,639.00	K947,880.00

---

^[1] (1995) N1369
^[2] (2001) N2212.
^[3] (2001) N2274.
^[4] WS. No. 1236 Kuk Kuli v. The State (28.06.04).
^[5] S. 1(1).
^[6] S. 2(1).
^[7] Ss. 57 & 58 of the Constitution.
^[8] S. 17.
^[9] S. 26.
^[10] S. 44.
^[11] S. 36.
^[12] S. 49.
^[13] S. 53.
^[14] S. 37(1).
^[15] [1995] PNGLR 43.
^[16] [1994] PNGLR 262.
^[17] [1994] PNGLR 265.
^[18] See Livingstone v. Rawyards Coal (1880) 5 AC25 at p. 39.
^[19] Sharp & Sharp v. The State & Ors (1995) N1398, per Sheehan, J.
^[20] See for instance, Tony Wemin & Ors v. The State, per Kirriwom J, (2001) N2134.
^[21] (1995) N1350.
^[22] At page 3 & 4.
^[23] Supra.
^[24] See for instance the recent judgment of Sakora J in John Wena & 46 Ors v The State (2003) N2529.
^[25] Supra.
^[26] Supra.
^[27] S. 58(2).
^[28] [1995] PNGLR 43 at page 49.
^[29] S. 44.
^[30] S. 36.
^[31] S. 49.
^[32] S. 53.
^[33] S. 37(1).
^[34] S. 37(1).
^[35] [1996] PNGLR 211.
^[36] Supra.
^[37] WS No. 233 of 1994 (unreported).
^[38] (2002) N2207.
^[39] (1978) 3 WLR 955 (Home of Lords).
^[40] Supra.
^[41] (2001) N2160.
^[42] (2002) N2282.
^[43] (2003) N2328.
^[44] (2004) SC 729, per Hinchliffe, Sevua and Mogish, JJ.
^[45] Supra.
^[46] Supra.
^[47] As he then was.
^[48] Supra.
^[49] Supra.
^[50] Supra.
^[51] Supra.
^[52] Supra.
^[53] Supra.
^[54] Former Chief Justice of Papua New Guinea.
^[55] Sir Arnold’s “Education and human rights” article was published in the National publication of 17 August 2004.