Jacob v Namora [2020] PGNC 147; N8385 (24 June 2020)

N8385

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

WS NO 538 OF 2010

MICHAEL JACOB FOR HIMSELF
AND 106 OTHERS NAMED IN THE SCHEDULE TO THE WRIT
Plaintiffs

V

CHIEF INSPECTOR JIM NAMORA
First Defendant

SERGEANT HENRY MONG
Second Defendant

THE INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA
Third Defendant

CANNINGS J

Madang: 11 December 2019, 6 March 2020
Waigani: 24 June 2020

DAMAGES – breach of human rights – Police raid of island villages – property damage – assault – assessment of damages after entry of default judgment.

The plaintiffs sued the defendants (various members of the Police Force and the State) in connection with a police raid of their villages and destruction of their homes, gardens and other properties. A trial on liability resulted in judgment in favour of the plaintiffs, against all defendants, for human rights breaches under ss 37 (protection of the law) and 44 (freedom from arbitrary search and entry) of the Constitution. At the trial on assessment of damages, 107 plaintiffs gave evidence and sought damages in four categories: (a) general damages for pain and suffering, distress etc, K50,000.00 each; (b) special damages (property losses), various amounts totalling approximately K2.5 million; (c) breach of human rights, K20,000.00 each; and (d) exemplary damages, K10,000.00, a grand total of approximately K11 million. In response, the defendants maintained that the claims were fraudulent, as no police raid took place, and all damage to property that occurred was caused by the residents of the island fighting amongst themselves over customary land. The defendants argued that the proceedings should be dismissed and in the alternative, that the plaintiffs be awarded nominal damages only as evidence in support of the alleged property damage was unreliable, inconsistent, lacking in detail and fraudulent.

Held:

(1) The defendants’ contention that the proceeding be dismissed was meritless as this was a case in which liability had been established at a trial and there was no order of the National Court or the Supreme Court setting aside the order as to liability.

(2) Though there were deficiencies in the plaintiffs’ evidence, damages were awarded to each plaintiff who gave evidence in the following amounts: (a) general damages for pain and suffering, distress etc, K10,000.00 each, a total of K1,070,000.00; (b) property losses, each claim being discounted by 90% to arrive at an appropriate assessment, a total of K247,766.22; (c) breach of human rights, K5,000.00 each, totalling K535,000.00; and (d) exemplary damages, K5,000.00 each, totalling K535,000.00. The grand total of damages awarded was K2,387,766.22. In addition each plaintiff was awarded interest on the amount of damages awarded to them, at the rate of 2% per annum, for the period from the date of the filing of the writ to the date of judgment, a period of 10.11 years, a total of K482,806.33. The total judgment sum was K2,870,572.54.

Cases Cited

The following cases are cited in the judgment:

Albert Baine v The State (1995) N1335
Alphonse Willie v Simon Kaupa (2016) N6553
Anuta Jobou v Alfred Kumasi and The State (2012) N4607
Eton Pakui v The State (2006) N2977
Francis Fuliva v Inspector Tony Wagambie Junior (2013) N5221
Joe Tipaiza v James Yali (2008) N3472
Jonathan Mangope Paraia v The State (1995) N1343
Justin Bau v Paul Karl (2010) N4123
Kolaip Palapi v Sergeant Poko (2001) N2274
Kopung Brothers Business Group v Sakawar Kasieng [1997] PNGLR 331
Peter Wanis v Fred Sikiot and The State (1995) N1350
Stanley Baine v Arnold Ulga & The State (2019) N8076
Thompson Munvi v Arnold Ulka Takai & The State (2018) N7100
William Mel v Coleman Pakalia (2005) SC790
Yange Lagan v The State (1995) N1369
Yooken Paklin v The State (2001) N2212

ASSESSMENT

This was a trial on assessment of damages.

Counsel

B B Wak, for the Plaintiffs
S Maliaki, for the Defendants

24^th June, 2020

1. CANNINGS J: This is an assessment of damages following a trial on liability, in which the first and second defendants (as members of the Police Force) and the third defendant (the State) were found liable for human rights breaches committed against the plaintiffs in a police raid of various villages on Bagabag Island, Sumkar District, Madang Province, on 25 December 2005. A total of 107 plaintiffs have given evidence.

PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE

2. The plaintiffs seek damages in four categories:

(a) general damages for pain and suffering, distress etc, K50,000.00 each;

(b) “special damages”, which is better regarded as a claim for property losses, various amounts, totalling approximately K2.5 million; and

(c) breach of human rights, K10,000.00 each; and

(d) exemplary damages, K10,000.00 each.

The total amount of the plaintiffs’ claims is approximately K11 million.

3. In response, the defendants maintained that the claims are fraudulent, as no police raid took place, and all damage to property that occurred at the relevant time was caused by the residents of the island fighting amongst themselves due to an ongoing dispute over customary land. The defendants argued that the proceedings should be dismissed and in the alternative, that the plaintiffs be awarded nominal damages only as the evidence in support of the alleged property damage was unreliable, inconsistent, lacking in detail and fraudulent.

EVIDENCE

4. The plaintiffs’ case consisted of affidavits sworn by 107 plaintiffs, each affidavit deposing to what the police had done and the property damagethe deponent had incurred and/or witnessed. The only evidence for the defendants was an affidavit by the first defendant, who stated that he did in fact lead a contingent of nine members of the Police Force to Bagabag Island on 25 December 2005, but that none of his contingent committed any property damage, as all the damage had been done by the time they arrived. The damage was caused by the plaintiffs themselves and other island people fighting over customary land.

DETERMINATION OF LIABILITY

5. The defendants’ contention that the proceeding should be dismissed is meritless. This is a case in which liability was established at a trial. Liability was not established via the default judgment procedure. There is no order of the National Court or the Supreme Court setting aside the order as to liability. The issue of liability will not be revisited.

6. The plaintiffs have established causes of action against the defendants for breaches of human rights, in particular, breach of the following:

• the right to the full protection of the law under Section 37(1) of the Constitution; and
  
• the right to freedom from arbitrary search and entry of their property and premises under Section 44 of the Constitution.
  

GENERAL PRINCIPLES FOR ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES

7. In assessing damages I have had regard to the following principles:

• The plaintiffs have the onus of proving their losses on the balance of probabilities. It is not sufficient to make assertions in a statement of claim and then expect the court to award what is claimed. The burden of proving a fact is upon the party alleging it, not the party who denies it (Yooken Paklin v The State (2001) N2212).
  
• Corroboration of a claim is usually required and the corroboration must come from an independent source (Albert Baine v The State (1995) N1335; Kopung Brothers Business Group v Sakawar Kasieng [1997] PNGLR 331).
  
• The principles of proof and corroboration apply even when the defendant fails to present any evidence disputing the claim (Peter Wanis v Fred Sikiot and The State (1995) N1350).
  
• The fact that damages cannot be assessed with certainty does not relieve the wrongdoer of the necessity of paying damages. Where precise evidence is available, the court expects to have it. However, where it is not, the court must do the best it can (Jonathan Mangope Paraia v The State (1995) N1343).
  
• The court must be alert to vague claims, unsupported by corroborating evidence, as they might be false claims. The court must only uphold genuine claims (Kolaip Palapi v Sergeant Poko (2001) N2274).
  

APPROACH TO ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES
8. I will assess damages in the four categories of damages claimed by the plaintiffs.

(a) GENERAL DAMAGES

9. Mr Wak submitted that each plaintiff who has given evidence should be awarded K50,000.00 general damages. It is clear that it was a traumatic and disturbing experience for the plaintiffs. However, there is insufficient evidence and precedent available on which an award of K50,000.00 would be warranted. I award each plaintiff who has given evidence the sum of K10,000.00.

(b) PROPERTY LOSSES

10. Ms Maliaki, for the defendants, pointed out many deficiencies in the plaintiffs’ evidence, in her detailed and helpful written submission. I take into account that a lack of corroboration pervades the plaintiffs’ evidence as to property losses, calling into question its veracity. There are instances of affidavits appearing to be signed by the same person, and there has been no rigorous identification of deponents (a process that has been used in a number of recent, similar multi-plaintiff cases in Madang). There is no independent verification of the extent of the damage.

11. I uphold the defendants’ argument that the plaintiffs’ claims are exaggerated. It is nonetheless appropriate to arrive at an assessment of damages. I have had regard to the approach I have taken in a number of other cases of multiple plaintiffs, in “police raid cases”. In some cases I have discounted each claim by a certain percentage to arrive at reasonable and realistic sums. For example:

• Eton Pakui v The State (2006) N2977: a case involving an unlawful police raid of Tulipato village, Enga Province. The 16 claims were each discounted by 90%.
  
• Joe Tipaiza v James Yali (2008) N3472: 220 plaintiffs claimed property losses of K3.9 million following an unlawful squatter eviction exercise by Police and the provincial government in Madang. Each claim was discounted by 50%.
  
• Anuta Jobou v Alfred Kumasi and The State (2012) N4607: there was an unlawful police raid of Bom village in the Rai Coast district of Madang Province in which houses were burned and other property including gardens and livestock destroyed. The claims by the 155 plaintiffs were each discounted by 50%.
  
• Francis Fuliva v Inspector Tony Wagambie Junior (2013) N5221: 1,281 plaintiffs, illegal settlers on Government land in Madang, succeeded at a trial in establishing a cause of action in breach of the agreement governing their eviction. A separate trial was conducted on assessment of damages. The plaintiffs claimed two categories of damages: (1) general damages for breach of agreement and pain and suffering, K5,000.00 each; and (2) specific damages for destruction of property, different amounts being sought by each plaintiff, a sum of K13,585,763.81. It was held that there was no evidence in support of the plaintiffs’ claim for general damages and nothing was awarded. As for the claims for property damage, each claim was discounted by 90% to arrive at an award of damages for property losses.
  
• Thompson Munvi v Arnold Ulka Takai & The State (2018) N7100: there was an unlawful police raid of a rural settlement in Madang district of Madang Province in which houses were burned and other property including gardens and livestock destroyed. The 1,335 plaintiffs obtained default judgment, but at the trial on assessment of damages, only 106 gave evidence. The 106 claims for property losses were each discounted by 90%.
  
• Stanley Baine v Arnold Ulga & The State (2019) N8076: there was an unlawful police raid of a village on Karkar Island in Sumkar district of Madang Province in which houses were burned and other property including gardens and livestock destroyed. Default judgment was entered against the defendants. At the trial on assessment of damages, 76 plaintiffs gave evidence. Their claims for property losses were each discounted by 90%.
  

12. In other cases I have awarded the same global sum to each plaintiff who has given evidence. For example:

• Justin Bau v Paul Karl (2010) N4123: 61 plaintiffs were the victims of a police raid at Muledami settlement in the hilltops around Kimbe, West New Britain. In an assessment of damages following entry of default judgment against the State I concluded that the claims were exaggerated and because of the lack of precision in the amounts being claimed by the plaintiffs I awarded them a flat figure of K10,000.00 each, rather than discounting each claim.
  
• Alphonse Willie v Simon Kaupa (2016) N6553: 1,852 plaintiffs sued the Police and the State after a series of raids on villages in the Gena area of Kerowagi District, Chimbu Province. Default judgment was entered against the State, which was held to be vicariously liable for the torts of trespass to property and detinue and for breaches of human rights committed by members of the Police Force. Because of deficiencies in the evidence, the 1,687 plaintiffs who gave evidence were awarded a global sum of K5,000.00 each to cover all causes of action and all categories of damages. The total amount of damages awarded was K8,435,000.00.
  

13. I have decided to take the first approach outlined above. I will discount each claim by 90% to take account of the deficiencies in the evidence. The result of this process of assessment is shown in table 1. Column 1 is the number ascribed to the plaintiff according to the numbering in Mr Wak’s submission. Column 2 is the plaintiff’s name. Column 3 is the amount claimed by the plaintiff for property losses. Column 4 is the figure in column 3 multiplied by 10% (representing the discounting of the total claim for property losses by 90%). It is the figure in column 4 that is the amount awarded to the plaintiff for property losses (category (b) of the claims).

TABLE 1: AWARD OF DAMAGES FOR PROPERTY LOSSES

No	Plaintiff’s name	Property losses claimed (k)	Property losses awarded (k)
1	Michael Jacob	206,292.12	20,629.21
2	Gaeail Michael	6,952.12	695.21
3	Kabine Piok	4,938.30	493.83
4	Linus Jacob	5,219.80	521.98
5	Eliot Jacobs	4,655.04	465.50
6	Sareng Jacob	4,697.00	469.70
7	Jnr Michael Jacob	1,520.00	152.00
8	Rennie Jacob	1,227.83	122.78
9	Scholas Jacob	1,600.02	160.00
10	Kessie Jacob	1,288.13	128.81
11	Anna Bonyau	3,365.40	336.54
12	Rodney Bonyau	2,785.50	278.55
13	Lucy Bonyau	3,283.19	328.32
14	Junior Bonyau	1,150.60	115.06
15	Keam Bin	67,100.76	6,710.08
16	Martin Kaem	8,229.50	822.95
17	Gualeng Kaem	5,101.15	510.12
18	Binn Kaem	5,941.40	594.14
19	Junko Kaem	2,321.50	232.15
20	Steven Kaem	2,734.50	273.45
21	Lova Kaem	1,689.20	168.92
22	Salog Nathlum	54,832.94	5,483.29
23	Melisa Salog	7,901.22	790.12
24	Jerolyne Salog	1,673.20	167.32
25	Charlie Salog	1,046.60	104.66
26	Jacklyn Salog	915.20	91.52
27	Lelkie Jacob	44,369.90	4,436.99
28	Merian Misau	6,013.10	601.31
29	Joycelyn Misau	12,160.30	1,216.03
30	Churchill Jerry	1,244.90	124.49
31	Buburuk Abang	219,702.63	21,970.26
32	Robert Buburuk	27,365.30	2,736.53
33	Ben Birib	36,037.55	3,603.76
34	Wageb Birib	6,646.00	664.60
35	Joseph Kateu	5,965.50	596.55
36	Piligene Joseph	3,047.50	304.75
37	Rafidium Birib	239,528.38	23,952.84
38	Ismael Birib	8,487.00	848.70
39	Benbert Birib	1,179.00	117.90
40	Barang Agang	42,489.00	4,248.90
41	Ulei Baran	4,974.00	497.40
42	Elsie Baran	2,155.00	215.50
43	Nachance Baran	1,206.00	120.60
44	Abang Kumengi	63,637.00	6,363.70
45	Lalopein Abang	6,620.00	662.00
46	Kumengi Abang	2,054.00	205.40
47	Tina Abang	915.00	91.50
48	Kateu Abang	123,371.00	12,337.10
49	Endik Kateu	8,280.00	828.00
50	Mang Kateu	5,237.00	523.70
51	Mama Masik	8,517.00	851.70
52	Tawei Kumengei	72,042.12	7,204.21
53	Kumengei Abang	2,084.00	208.40
54	Pak Kemengae	6,182.75	618.28
55	Sebastine Kemengae	1,199.00	119.90
56	Weid Kemengae	6,517.00	651.70
57	Kaibon Kemengae	40,041.00	4,004.10
58	Lungai Kunjil	86,367.00	8,636.70
59	AgulLungai	10,196.00	1,019.60
60	Dui Lungai	1,292.00	129.20
61	Gamoi Lungai	1,516.00	151.60
62	Kelvin Lungai	1,259.00	125.90
63	Kunsel Lungai	742.00	74.20
64	Ledman Kunsel	20,698.00	2,069.80
65	Manai Ledman	7,024.00	702.40
66	Maki Ledman	1,679.00	167.90
67	Luther Ledman	1,063.00	106.30
68	Kapom Ledman	22,577.00	2,257.70
69	Martin Kunsel	64,120.00	6,412.00
70	Bunam Kunsel	94,685.00	9,468.50
71	Soi Bunam	10,496.00	1,049.60
72	Ropian Bunam	5,930.00	593.00
73	Simakoi Bunam	4,442.00	444.20
74	Katom Bunam	3,070.00	307.00
75	Keisan Bunam	1,199.00	119.90
76	Simoi Gabong	80,041.00	8,004.10
77	Garu Simoi	11,400.00	1,140.00
78	Annalin Simoi	1,391.00	139.10
79	Gabong Simoi	7,968.00	796.80
80	Edwin Madon	58,040.00	5,804.00
81	Vero Madom	5,587.00	558.70
82	Ernest Madom	1,109.00	110.90
83	Abu Agas	42,212.00	4,221.20
84	Kewang Abu	9,640.00	964.00
85	Seing Abu	11,008.00	1,100.80
86	Mupian Abu	6,907.00	690.70
87	Badir Abu	1,373.00	137.30
88	John Abu	1,055.00	105.50
89	Dug Tengir	37,285.00	3,728.50
90	Kamun Dug	9,187.00	918.70
91	Bul Dug	1,594.00	159.40
92	Lorran Dug	1,594.00	159.40
93	Hanaman Konang	12,803.00	1,280.30
94	Churchill Jacob	138,947.00	13,894.70
95	Weid Churchill	15,241.00	1,524.10
96	Jenny Churchill	1,783.00	178.30
97	Law Konang	18,899.00	1,889.90
98	Jerry Musau	37,522.00	3,752.20
99	Richard Konang	35,270.00	3,527.00
100	Seawet Bunam	27,000.00	2,700.00
101	Amos Floow	8,758.00	875.80
102	Konang Wagol	78,087.00	7,808.70
103	Deipeni Konang	9,352.00	935.20
104	Sikem Konang	7,292.00	729.20
105	Maria Konang	6,225.00	622.50
106	Adek Konang	5,232.00	523.20
107	Yass Konang	31,775.00	3,177.50
		2,477,662.15	247,766.22

(c) COMPENSATION FOR BREACH OF HUMAN RIGHTS

14. It is appropriate to award a separate sum as compensation for breaches of human rights. I award K5,000.00 for each plaintiff, a total of K380,000.00.

(d) EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

15. It is appropriate to award a separate sum as exemplary damages. I award K5,000.00 for each plaintiff, a total of K380,000.00.

SUMMARY

16. Each of the 106 plaintiffs who has given evidence is awarded the total of the following sums:

(a) general damages: K10,000.00;
(b) property losses: the amount shown for that plaintiff in table 1;
(c) compensation for breach of human rights: K5,000.00;
(d) exemplary damages: K5,000.00.

17. The total award of damages to each plaintiff who has given evidence is shown in table 2.

INTEREST

18. Mr Wak submitted that interest should be awarded on the total amount of damages awarded to each plaintiff under the Judicial Proceedings (Interest on Debts and Damages) Act 2015. He seeks interest at the rate of 2% per annum, in line with Section 4(3) of that Act. I uphold that submission.

19. As for the period in respect of which interest is calculated, I fix the start date as the date of filing the writ, 13 May 2010. The end date will be the date of delivery of the interim judgment, 24 June 2020. The period is 10.11 years. Interest will be awarded by applying the formula D x I x N = A, where D is the amount of damages, I is the interest rate per annum, N is the period in years, A is the amount of interest. Interest has been calculated by multiplying each award of damages by a factor of 0.2022 (0.02 x 10.11) and is shown in table 2.

TABLE 2: TOTAL AWARD OF DAMAGES + INTEREST

No	Plaintiff’s name	General damages (k)	Special damages: property losses (k)	Comp for breach of human rights (k)	Exemplary damages (k)	Total damages (k)	Interest (k)	Total damages + interest (k)
1	Michael Jacob	10,000.00	20,629.21	5,000.00	5,000.00	40,629.21	8,215.23	48,844.44
2	Gaeail Michael	10,000.00	695.21	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,695.21	4,184.57	24,879.78
3	Kabine Piok	10,000.00	493.83	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,493.83	4,143.85	24,637.68
4	Linus Jacob	10,000.00	521.98	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,521.98	4,149.54	24,671.52
5	Eliot Jacobs	10,000.00	465.50	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,465.50	4,138.12	24,603.63
6	Sareng Jacob	10,000.00	469.70	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,469.70	4,138.97	24,608.67
7	Jnr Michael Jacob	10,000.00	152.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,152.00	4,074.73	24,226.73
8	Rennie Jacob	10,000.00	122.78	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,122.78	4,068.83	24,191.61
9	Scholas Jacob	10,000.00	160.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,160.00	4,076.35	24,236.35
10	Kessie Jacob	10,000.00	128.81	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,128.81	4,070.05	24,198.86
11	Anna Bonyau	10,000.00	336.54	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,336.54	4,112.05	24,448.59
12	Rodney Bonyau	10,000.00	278.55	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,278.55	4,100.32	24,378.87
13	Lucy Bonyau	10,000.00	328.32	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,328.32	4,110.39	24,438.71
14	Junior Bonyau	10,000.00	115.06	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,115.06	4,067.27	24,182.33
15	Keam Bin	10,000.00	6,710.08	5,000.00	5,000.00	26,710.08	5,400.78	32,110.85
16	Martin Kaem	10,000.00	822.95	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,822.95	4,210.40	25,033.35
17	GualengKaem	10,000.00	510.12	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,510.12	4,147.15	24,657.26
18	Binn Kaem	10,000.00	594.14	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,594.14	4,164.14	24,758.28
19	Junko Kaem	10,000.00	232.15	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,232.15	4,090.94	24,323.09
20	Steven Kaem	10,000.00	273.45	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,273.45	4,099.29	24,372.74
21	Lova Kaem	10,000.00	168.92	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,168.92	4,078.16	24,247.08
22	Salog Nathlum	10,000.00	5,483.29	5,000.00	5,000.00	25,483.29	5,152.72	30,636.02
23	Melisa Salog	10,000.00	790.12	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,790.12	4,203.76	24,993.88
24	JerolyneSalog	10,000.00	167.32	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,167.32	4,077.83	24,245.15
25	Charlie Salog	10,000.00	104.66	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,104.66	4,065.16	24,169.82
26	Jacklyn Salog	10,000.00	91.52	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,091.52	4,062.51	24,154.03
27	Lelkie Jacob	10,000.00	4,436.99	5,000.00	5,000.00	24,436.99	4,941.16	29,378.15
28	MerianMisau	10,000.00	601.31	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,601.31	4,165.58	24,766.89
29	Joycelyn Misau	10,000.00	1,216.03	5,000.00	5,000.00	21,216.03	4,289.88	25,505.91
30	Churchill Jerry	10,000.00	124.49	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,124.49	4,069.17	24,193.66
31	BuburukAbang	10,000.00	21,970.26	5,000.00	5,000.00	41,970.26	8,486.39	50,456.65
32	Robert Buburuk	10,000.00	2,736.53	5,000.00	5,000.00	22,736.53	4,597.33	27,333.86
33	Ben Birib	10,000.00	3,603.76	5,000.00	5,000.00	23,603.76	4,772.68	28,376.43
34	Wageb Birib	10,000.00	664.60	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,664.60	4,178.38	24,842.98
35	Joseph Kateu	10,000.00	596.55	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,596.55	4,164.62	24,761.17
36	Piligene Joseph	10,000.00	304.75	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,304.75	4,105.62	24,410.37
37	Rafidium Birib	10,000.00	23,952.84	5,000.00	5,000.00	43,952.84	8,887.26	52,840.10
38	Ismael Birib	10,000.00	848.70	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,848.70	4,215.61	25,064.31
39	BenbertBirib	10,000.00	117.90	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,117.90	4,067.84	24,185.74
40	Barang Agang	10,000.00	4,248.90	5,000.00	5,000.00	24,248.90	4,903.13	29,152.03
41	Ulei Baran	10,000.00	497.40	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,497.40	4,144.57	24,641.97
42	Elsie Baran	10,000.00	215.50	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,215.50	4,087.57	24,303.07
43	Nachance Baran	10,000.00	120.60	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,120.60	4,068.39	24,188.99
44	AbangKumengi	10,000.00	6,363.70	5,000.00	5,000.00	26,363.70	5,330.74	31,694.44
45	LalopeinAbang	10,000.00	662.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,662.00	4,177.86	24,839.86
46	Kumengi Abang	10,000.00	205.40	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,205.40	4,085.53	24,290.93
47	Tina Abang	10,000.00	91.50	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,091.50	4,062.50	24,154.00
48	Kateu Abang	10,000.00	12,337.10	5,000.00	5,000.00	32,337.10	6,538.56	38,875.66
49	Endik Kateu	10,000.00	828.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,828.00	4,211.42	25,039.42
50	Mang Kateu	10,000.00	523.70	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,523.70	4,149.89	24,673.59
51	Mama Masik	10,000.00	851.70	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,851.70	4,216.21	25,067.91
52	Tawei Kumengei	10,000.00	7,204.21	5,000.00	5,000.00	27,204.21	5,500.69	32,704.90
53	Kumengei Abang	10,000.00	208.40	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,208.40	4,086.14	24,294.54
54	Pak Kemengae	10,000.00	618.28	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,618.28	4,169.02	24,787.29
55	Sebastine Kemengae	10,000.00	119.90	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,119.90	4,068.24	24,188.14
56	Weid Kemengae	10,000.00	651.70	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,651.70	4,175.77	24,827.47
57	Kaibon Kemengae	10,000.00	4,004.10	5,000.00	5,000.00	24,004.10	4,853.63	28,857.73
58	Lungai Kunjil	10,000.00	8,636.70	5,000.00	5,000.00	28,636.70	5,790.34	34,427.04
59	Agul Lungai	10,000.00	1,019.60	5,000.00	5,000.00	21,019.60	4,250.16	25,269.76
60	Dui Lungai	10,000.00	129.20	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,129.20	4,070.12	24,199.32
61	Gamoi Lungai	10,000.00	151.60	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,151.60	4,074.65	24,226.25
62	Kelvin Lungai	10,000.00	125.90	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,125.90	4,069.46	24,195.36
63	Kunsel Lungai	10,000.00	74.20	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,074.20	4,059.00	24,133.20
64	LedmanKunsel	10,000.00	2,069.80	5,000.00	5,000.00	22,069.80	4,462.51	26,532.31
65	Manai Ledman	10,000.00	702.40	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,702.40	4,186.03	24,888.43
66	Maki Ledman	10,000.00	167.90	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,167.90	4,077.95	24,245.85
67	Luther Ledman	10,000.00	106.30	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,106.30	4,065.49	24,171.79
68	Kapom Ledman	10,000.00	2,257.70	5,000.00	5,000.00	22,257.70	4,500.51	26,758.21
69	Martin Kunsel	10,000.00	6,412.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	26,412.00	5,340.51	31,752.51
70	Bunam Kunsel	10,000.00	9,468.50	5,000.00	5,000.00	29,468.50	5,958.53	35,427.03
71	Soi Bunam	10,000.00	1,049.60	5,000.00	5,000.00	21,049.60	4,256.23	25,305.83
72	Ropian Bunam	10,000.00	593.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,593.00	4,163.90	24,756.90
73	SimakoiBunam	10,000.00	444.20	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,444.20	4,133.82	24,578.02
74	Katom Bunam	10,000.00	307.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,307.00	4,106.08	24,413.08
75	Keisan Bunam	10,000.00	119.90	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,119.90	4,068.24	24,188.14
76	Simoi Gabong	10,000.00	8,004.10	5,000.00	5,000.00	28,004.10	5,662.43	33,666.53
77	Garu Simoi	10,000.00	1,140.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	21,140.00	4,274.51	25,414.51
78	AnnalinSimoi	10,000.00	139.10	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,139.10	4,072.13	24,211.23
79	GabongSimoi	10,000.00	796.80	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,796.80	4,205.11	25,001.91
80	Edwin Madon	10,000.00	5,804.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	25,804.00	5,217.57	31,021.57
81	Vero Madom	10,000.00	558.70	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,558.70	4,156.97	24,715.67
82	Ernest Madom	10,000.00	110.90	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,110.90	4,066.42	24,177.32
83	Abu Agas	10,000.00	4,221.20	5,000.00	5,000.00	24,221.20	4,897.53	29,118.73
84	Kewang Abu	10,000.00	964.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,964.00	4,238.92	25,202.92
85	Seing Abu	10,000.00	1,100.80	5,000.00	5,000.00	21,100.80	4,266.58	25,367.38
86	Mupian Abu	10,000.00	690.70	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,690.70	4,183.66	24,874.36
87	Badir Abu	10,000.00	137.30	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,137.30	4,071.76	24,209.06
88	John Abu	10,000.00	105.50	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,105.50	4,065.33	24,170.83
89	Dug Tengir	10,000.00	3,728.50	5,000.00	5,000.00	23,728.50	4,797.90	28,526.40
90	Kamun Dug	10,000.00	918.70	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,918.70	4,229.76	25,148.46
91	Bul Dug	10,000.00	159.40	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,159.40	4,076.23	24,235.63
92	Lorran Dug	10,000.00	159.40	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,159.40	4,076.23	24,235.63
93	Hanaman Konang	10,000.00	1,280.30	5,000.00	5,000.00	21,280.30	4,302.88	25,583.18
94	Churchill Jacob	10,000.00	13,894.70	5,000.00	5,000.00	33,894.70	6,853.51	40,748.21
95	Weid Churchill	10,000.00	1,524.10	5,000.00	5,000.00	21,524.10	4,352.17	25,876.27
96	Jenny Churchill	10,000.00	178.30	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,178.30	4,080.05	24,258.35
97	Law Konang	10,000.00	1,889.90	5,000.00	5,000.00	21,889.90	4,426.14	26,316.04
98	Jerry Musau	10,000.00	3,752.20	5,000.00	5,000.00	23,752.20	4,802.69	28,554.89
99	Richard Konang	10,000.00	3,527.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	23,527.00	4,757.16	28,284.16
100	Seawet Bunam	10,000.00	2,700.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	22,700.00	4,589.94	27,289.94
101	Amos Floow	10,000.00	875.80	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,875.80	4,221.09	25,096.89
102	Konang Wagol	10,000.00	7,808.70	5,000.00	5,000.00	27,808.70	5,622.92	33,431.62
103	DeipeniKonang	10,000.00	935.20	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,935.20	4,233.10	25,168.30
104	Sikem Konang	10,000.00	729.20	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,729.20	4,191.44	24,920.64
105	Maria Konang	10,000.00	622.50	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,622.50	4,169.87	24,792.37
106	Adek Konang	10,000.00	523.20	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,523.20	4,149.79	24,672.99
107	Yass Konang	10,000.00	3,177.50	5,000.00	5,000.00	23,177.50	4,686.49	27,863.99

1,070,000.00

247,766.22

535,000.00

535,000.00

2,387,766.22

482,806.33

2,870,572.54

COSTS

20. The general rule is that costs follow the event, ie the successful party has its costs paid for by the losing party on a party-to-party basis. The question of costs is a discretionary matter. I will awardthe plaintiffs only half of their costs as I have found their claims to be exaggerated.

ORDER

1. Damages are payable by the defendants to each plaintiff whose name appears in the Schedule, in the amount shown for each plaintiff.
   
2. In addition, interest is payable by the defendants to each plaintiff whose name appears in the Schedule, in the amount shown for each plaintiff.
   
3. The case of any plaintiff whose name does not appear in the Schedule is dismissed.
   
4. Subject to any particular costs order to the contrary, the defendants shall pay half of the costs of the entire proceedings of the plaintiffs whose names appears in the Schedule, on a party-party basis, to be taxed if not agreed.
   
5. The proceedings are thereby determined and the file is closed.
   

SCHEDULE

No	Plaintiff’s name	Total damages (k)	Interest (k)	Total damages + interest (k)
1	Michael Jacob	40,629.21	8,215.23	48,844.44
2	Gaeail Michael	20,695.21	4,184.57	24,879.78
3	Kabine Piok	20,493.83	4,143.85	24,637.68
4	Linus Jacob	20,521.98	4,149.54	24,671.52
5	Eliot Jacobs	20,465.50	4,138.12	24,603.63
6	Sareng Jacob	20,469.70	4,138.97	24,608.67
7	Jnr Michael Jacob	20,152.00	4,074.73	24,226.73
8	Rennie Jacob	20,122.78	4,068.83	24,191.61
9	Scholas Jacob	20,160.00	4,076.35	24,236.35
10	Kessie Jacob	20,128.81	4,070.05	24,198.86
11	Anna Bonyau	20,336.54	4,112.05	24,448.59
12	Rodney Bonyau	20,278.55	4,100.32	24,378.87
13	Lucy Bonyau	20,328.32	4,110.39	24,438.71
14	Junior Bonyau	20,115.06	4,067.27	24,182.33
15	Keam Bin	26,710.08	5,400.78	32,110.85
16	Martin Kaem	20,822.95	4,210.40	25,033.35
17	Gualeng Kaem	20,510.12	4,147.15	24,657.26
18	Binn Kaem	20,594.14	4,164.14	24,758.28
19	Junko Kaem	20,232.15	4,090.94	24,323.09
20	Steven Kaem	20,273.45	4,099.29	24,372.74
21	Lova Kaem	20,168.92	4,078.16	24,247.08
22	Salog Nathlum	25,483.29	5,152.72	30,636.02
23	Melisa Salog	20,790.12	4,203.76	24,993.88
24	Jerolyne Salog	20,167.32	4,077.83	24,245.15
25	Charlie Salog	20,104.66	4,065.16	24,169.82
26	Jacklyn Salog	20,091.52	4,062.51	24,154.03
27	Lelkie Jacob	24,436.99	4,941.16	29,378.15
28	Merian Misau	20,601.31	4,165.58	24,766.89
29	Joycelyn Misau	21,216.03	4,289.88	25,505.91
30	Churchill Jerry	20,124.49	4,069.17	24,193.66
31	Buburuk Abang	41,970.26	8,486.39	50,456.65
32	Robert Buburuk	22,736.53	4,597.33	27,333.86
33	Ben Birib	23,603.76	4,772.68	28,376.43
34	Wageb Birib	20,664.60	4,178.38	24,842.98
35	Joseph Kateu	20,596.55	4,164.62	24,761.17
36	Piligene Joseph	20,304.75	4,105.62	24,410.37
37	Rafidium Birib	43,952.84	8,887.26	52,840.10
38	Ismael Birib	20,848.70	4,215.61	25,064.31
39	Benbert Birib	20,117.90	4,067.84	24,185.74
40	Barang Agang	24,248.90	4,903.13	29,152.03
41	Ulei Baran	20,497.40	4,144.57	24,641.97
42	Elsie Baran	20,215.50	4,087.57	24,303.07
43	Nachance Baran	20,120.60	4,068.39	24,188.99
44	Abang Kumengi	26,363.70	5,330.74	31,694.44
45	Lalopein Abang	20,662.00	4,177.86	24,839.86
46	Kumengi Abang	20,205.40	4,085.53	24,290.93
47	Tina Abang	20,091.50	4,062.50	24,154.00
48	Kateu Abang	32,337.10	6,538.56	38,875.66
49	Endik Kateu	20,828.00	4,211.42	25,039.42
50	Mang Kateu	20,523.70	4,149.89	24,673.59
51	Mama Masik	20,851.70	4,216.21	25,067.91
52	Tawei Kumengei	27,204.21	5,500.69	32,704.90
53	Kumengei Abang	20,208.40	4,086.14	24,294.54
54	Pak Kemengae	20,618.28	4,169.02	24,787.29
55	Sebastine Kemengae	20,119.90	4,068.24	24,188.14
56	Weid Kemengae	20,651.70	4,175.77	24,827.47
57	Kaibon Kemengae	24,004.10	4,853.63	28,857.73
58	Lungai Kunjil	28,636.70	5,790.34	34,427.04
59	Agul Lungai	21,019.60	4,250.16	25,269.76
60	Dui Lungai	20,129.20	4,070.12	24,199.32
61	Gamoi Lungai	20,151.60	4,074.65	24,226.25
62	Kelvin Lungai	20,125.90	4,069.46	24,195.36
63	Kunsel Lungai	20,074.20	4,059.00	24,133.20
64	Ledman Kunsel	22,069.80	4,462.51	26,532.31
65	Manai Ledman	20,702.40	4,186.03	24,888.43
66	Maki Ledman	20,167.90	4,077.95	24,245.85
67	Luther Ledman	20,106.30	4,065.49	24,171.79
68	Kapom Ledman	22,257.70	4,500.51	26,758.21
69	Martin Kunsel	26,412.00	5,340.51	31,752.51
70	Bunam Kunsel	29,468.50	5,958.53	35,427.03
71	Soi Bunam	21,049.60	4,256.23	25,305.83
72	Ropian Bunam	20,593.00	4,163.90	24,756.90
73	Simakoi Bunam	20,444.20	4,133.82	24,578.02
74	Katom Bunam	20,307.00	4,106.08	24,413.08
75	Keisan Bunam	20,119.90	4,068.24	24,188.14
76	Simoi Gabong	28,004.10	5,662.43	33,666.53
77	Garu Simoi	21,140.00	4,274.51	25,414.51
78	Annalin Simoi	20,139.10	4,072.13	24,211.23
79	Gabong Simoi	20,796.80	4,205.11	25,001.91
80	Edwin Madon	25,804.00	5,217.57	31,021.57
81	Vero Madom	20,558.70	4,156.97	24,715.67
82	Ernest Madom	20,110.90	4,066.42	24,177.32
83	Abu Agas	24,221.20	4,897.53	29,118.73
84	Kewang Abu	20,964.00	4,238.92	25,202.92
85	Seing Abu	21,100.80	4,266.58	25,367.38
86	Mupian Abu	20,690.70	4,183.66	24,874.36
87	Badir Abu	20,137.30	4,071.76	24,209.06
88	John Abu	20,105.50	4,065.33	24,170.83
89	Dug Tengir	23,728.50	4,797.90	28,526.40
90	Kamun Dug	20,918.70	4,229.76	25,148.46
91	Bul Dug	20,159.40	4,076.23	24,235.63
92	Lorran Dug	20,159.40	4,076.23	24,235.63
93	Hanaman Konang	21,280.30	4,302.88	25,583.18
94	Churchill Jacob	33,894.70	6,853.51	40,748.21
95	Weid Churchill	21,524.10	4,352.17	25,876.27
96	Jenny Churchill	20,178.30	4,080.05	24,258.35
97	Law Konang	21,889.90	4,426.14	26,316.04
98	Jerry Musau	23,752.20	4,802.69	28,554.89
99	Richard Konang	23,527.00	4,757.16	28,284.16
100	Seawet Bunam	22,700.00	4,589.94	27,289.94
101	Amos Floow	20,875.80	4,221.09	25,096.89
102	Konang Wagol	27,808.70	5,622.92	33,431.62
103	Deipeni Konang	20,935.20	4,233.10	25,168.30
104	Sikem Konang	20,729.20	4,191.44	24,920.64
105	Maria Konang	20,622.50	4,169.87	24,792.37
106	Adek Konang	20,523.20	4,149.79	24,672.99
107	Yass Konang	23,177.50	4,686.49	27,863.99

2,387,766.22

482,806.33

2,870,572.54

Judgment accordingly.
__________________________________________________________________
Bradley Wak Lawyers: Lawyers for the Plaintiffs
Solicitor-General: Lawyer for the Defendants