Mabiria v Onopia [2021] PGNC 140; N8911 (5 July 2021)

N8911

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

WS (HR) NO 26 OF 2015

LEMSON L MABIRIA & ANDY HAMAGA ON THEIR BEHALF
& ON BEHALF OF OTHER CLAN MEMBERS OF HONOKA CLAN, PARA VILLAGE, HELA PROVINCE
Plaintiffs

V

PROVINCIAL POLICE COMMANDER, JIMMY ONOPIA
First Defendant

GARI BAKI, COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Second Defendant

THE INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA
Third Defendant

Waigani: Cannings J
2021: 8^th June, 2^nd, 5^th July

DAMAGES – breach of human rights – Police raid of rural village – property damage – assessment of damages after trial on liability

The plaintiffs sued the defendants (various members of the Police Force and the State) in connection with a police raid of a rural village. A trial on liability resulted in judgment in favour of the plaintiffs against the third defendant (the State) for negligence and for human rights breaches under ss 41 (proscribed acts), 44 (freedom from arbitrary search and entry), 49 (right to privacy) and 53 (protection from unjust deprivation of property) of the Constitution. At the trial on assessment of damages, 61 plaintiffs gave evidence and sought damages in four categories: (a) special damages (property losses), various amounts totalling approximately K11.7 million; (b) general damages for pain and suffering, distress etc, K20,000.00 each; (c) compensation for breach of human rights, K5,000.00 each; and (d) exemplary damages, K5,000.00 each, a grand total of approximately K14.2 million. In response, the defendants submitted that only those amongst the 15 named plaintiffs who gave evidence should be awarded any damages and that the claims on behalf of family members should be refused, and further that the claims for property losses were grossly exaggerated and should be discounted by 99% and that nothing should be awarded for the other categories of damages, so the plaintiffs should be awarded no more than approximately K90,000.00.

Held:

(1) Damages should be awarded to those persons named as plaintiffs in the writ who have given direct evidence in support of their claim. In that regard the defendants’ argument that there were only 15 plaintiffs was rejected, as there were, in addition to those 15 primary plaintiffs, additional family members identified as plaintiffs in the writ.

(2) Though there were deficiencies in the plaintiffs’ evidence, damages were awarded to each plaintiff who gave evidence in the following amounts: (a) special damages (property losses), each claim being discounted by 90% to arrive at an appropriate assessment, a total of K1,177,207.50; (b) general damages for pain and suffering, distress etc, K10,000.00 each, a total of K610,000.00; (c) compensation for breaches of human rights, K5,000.00 each, a total of K305,000.00; and (d) exemplary damages, K5,000.00 each, a total of K305,000.00. The grand total of damages awarded was K2,397,207.50.

(3) 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 5.65 years, a total of K270,884.45. The total judgment sum was K2,668,091.95.

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
Jacinta Albert v Joseph Aine (2019) N7772
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
Michael Jacob v Jim Namora & The State (2020) N8385
Nick Betanjo v Fred Yakasa (2020) N8419
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
Yooken Pakilin v The State (2001) N2212

ASSESSMENT

This was a trial on assessment of damages following a trial on liability.

Counsel

C Posman, for the Plaintiffs
C Kuson, for the Defendants

5^th July, 2021

1. CANNINGS J: This is an assessment of damages following a trial on liability that concluded with an order on 5 November 2020 that the third defendant (the State) was liable for human rights breaches committed against the plaintiffs in a police raid of Para village in the Komo area of Hela Province carried out on 4 October 2013.

2. The police raid was undertaken in response to the murder of two Chinese nationals who had been killed in the provincial capital, Tari. The Police arrived at the village in search for suspects but were evidently not satisfied with the level of cooperation they received. The police set fire to various dwelling houses, guesthouses and trade stores. There was no court order authorising the raid and it was not authorised by any other lawful process. Those are the facts on which liability has been established.

PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE

3. At the trial on assessment of damages, the plaintiffs sought damages in four categories: (a) special damages (property losses), various amounts totalling approximately K11.7 million; (b) general damages for pain and suffering, distress etc, K20,000.00 each; (c) compensation for breach of human rights, K5,000.00 each; and (e) exemplary damages, K5,000.00 each, a grand total of approximately K14.2 million.

4. In response, the defendants submitted that only those amongst the 15 named plaintiffs who have given evidence should be awarded any damages and that the claims on behalf of family members should be refused, and further that the claims for property losses were grossly exaggerated and should be discounted by 99% and that nothing should be awarded for the other categories of damages, so the plaintiffs should be awarded no more than approximately K90,000.00.

EVIDENCE

5. The plaintiffs’ case consisted of affidavits sworn by 61 plaintiffs, deposing to what the police had done and the property damage the deponent had incurred and/or witnessed, plus a supporting affidavit by the then Provincial Administrator, William Bando. Four witnesses gave evidence for the defendants, in support of the contention that, although there was an incident involving police on the day alleged, the nature of the incident and the type and extent of damage done to property was of a different character and extent than alleged by the plaintiffs.

DETERMINATION OF LIABILITY

6. The terms of the order of 5 November 2020 are that the plaintiffs established liability against the third defendant in negligence and for breaches of human rights under ss 41 (proscribed acts), 44 (freedom from arbitrary search and entry), 49 (right to privacy) and 53 (protection from unjust deprivation of property) 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 Pakilin 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 award damages to those persons named as plaintiffs in the writ who have given direct evidence in support of their claim. In that regard the defendants’ argument that there were only 15 plaintiffs is rejected, as there were, in addition to the 15 primary plaintiffs, additional family members identified as plaintiffs in the writ.

9. I will assess damages in the four categories of damages claimed by the plaintiffs.

(a) PROPERTY LOSSES

10. Fifteen of the plaintiffs have given evidence of property losses. Ms Kuson, for the defendants, pointed out many deficiencies in their evidence, which she submitted is exaggerated. I take into account that there is a detailed valuation report corroborating the plaintiffs’ claims but I agree that the evidence as to how it was prepared strains credibility. I uphold Ms Kuson’s submission that the plaintiffs’ claims are exaggerated. However, I do not think it would be appropriate to award them only 1% of what they are claiming. Clearly there was a raid and a lot of homes and other properties were destroyed. The plaintiffs have a right to be compensated for their property losses. Judicial notice is taken of the raid happening in 2013 in an area that was in boom times as it was during the construction phase of the PNG LNG project.

11. 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%.
  
• Michael Jacob v Jim Namora & The State (2020) N8385: there was an unlawful police raid of villages on Bagabag Island in Sumkar district of Madang Province in which houses were burned and other property including gardens and livestock destroyed. Liability was established at a trial. At the trial on assessment of damages, 107 plaintiffs gave evidence. Their claims for property losses were each discounted by 90%.
  
• Nick Betanjo v Fred Yakasa (2020) N8419: there was an unlawful police raid of an urban settlement in Port Moresby in which houses were burned and many properties destroyed. Liability was established at a trial. At the trial on assessment of damages, 100 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. Mr Posman, for the plaintiffs urged me not to discount the claims by more than 70% if I took the first of those approaches, due to special features of this case that distinguish it from the other cases in which I have discounted claims by up to 90%.

14. I have decided to take the first approach outlined above. I am not persuaded by the submission that the extent of discounting the claims should not exceed 70%. Nor do I consider that discounting the claims by 99%, as contended for by the defendants’ counsel, would yield a just outcome. 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 Posman’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 (a) of the claims).

TABLE 1: AWARD OF DAMAGES FOR PROPERTY LOSSES

No	Plaintiff’s name	Property losses claimed (K)	Property losses awarded (K)
1	Lemson Mabiria	1,300,000.00	130,000.00
2	Thompson Moyali Mukupigo	2,600,000.00	260,000.00
3	John Angai Piago	2,754,600.00	275,460.00
4	Andy Hamaga	2,167,865.00	216,786.50
5	Palipe Angoli	1,314,000.00	131,400.00
6	Kulai Pongarali	1,113,000.00	111,300.00
7	Alice Piago	48,540.00	4,854.00
8	Pani Angoli	54,560.00	5,456.00
9	Palope Kulai	35,500.00	3,550.00
10	Peter Pipe	33,650.00	3,365.00
11	Akori Piago	14,850.00	1,485.00
12	David Agobe	39,600.00	3,960.00
13	Ekawi Kulai	18,500.00	1,850.00
14	Susan Mukupigo	14,000.00	1,400.00
15	Jackson Hamaga	263,410.00	26,341.00
	Total	11,772,075.00	1,177,207.50

(b) GENERAL DAMAGES FOR PAIN AND SUFFERING, DISTRESS ETC

15. Mr Posman submitted that each plaintiff who has given evidence should be awarded K20,000.00 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 K20,000.00 would be warranted. Ms Kuson submitted that nothing should be awarded but such an approach is unwarranted. I award each plaintiff who has given evidence the sum of K10,000.00.

(c) COMPENSATION FOR BREACH OF HUMAN RIGHTS

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

(d) EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

17. It is appropriate to award a separate sum as exemplary damages. I award K5,000.00 for each plaintiff.

SUMMARY

18. Each of the 61 plaintiffs who has given evidence is awarded the total of the following sums:

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

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

INTEREST

20. Interest will be awarded on the total amount of damages awarded to each plaintiff under the Judicial Proceedings (Interest on Debts and Damages) Act 2015 at the rate of 2% per annum. As for the period in respect of which interest is calculated, I fix the start date as the date of filing the writ, 9 November 2015. The end date will be the date of delivery of this judgment, 5 July 2021. The period is 5.65 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 0.113 (0.02 x 5.65) and is shown in table 2.

TABLE 2: TOTAL AWARD OF DAMAGES + INTEREST

No	Plaintiff’s name	Special damages: property losses (K)	General damages for pain & suffering, distress etc (K)	Comp for breach of human rights (K)	Exemplary damages (K)	Total damages (K)	Interest (K)	Total damages + interest (K)
1	Lemson Mabiria	130,000.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	150,000.00	16,950.00	166,950.00
2	Thompson Moyali Mukupigo	260,000.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	280,000.00	31,640.00	311,640.00
3	John Angai Piago	275,460.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	295,460.00	33,386.98	328,846.98
4	Andy Hamaga	216,786.50	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	236,786.50	26,756.87	263,543.37
5	Palipe Angoli	131,400.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	151,400.00	17,108.20	168,508.20
6	Kulai Pongarali	111,300.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	131,300.00	14,836.90	146,136.90
7	Alice Piago	4,854.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	24,854.00	2,808.50	27,662.50
8	Pani Angoli	5,456.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	25,456.00	2,876.53	28,332.53
9	Palope Kulai	3,550.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	23,550.00	2,661.15	26,211.15
10	Peter Pipe	3,365.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	23,365.00	2,640.25	26,005.25
11	Akori Piago	1,485.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	21,485.00	2,427.81	23,912.81
12	David Agobe	3,960.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	23,960.00	2,707.48	26,667.48
13	Ekawi Kulai	1,850.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	21,850.00	2,469.05	24,319.05
14	Susan Mukupigo	1,400.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	21,400.00	2,418.20	23,818.20
15	Jackson Hamaga	26,341.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	46,341.00	5,236.53	51,577.53
16	Thonny B Dambo	0.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
17	Leo Koyabe	0.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
18	Simon Mutz	0.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
19	Ruth Alusis	0.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
20	Agnes Kulai	0.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
21	Agobe Matibe	0.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
22	Hangu Hagupi	0.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
23	Amale Topi	0.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
24	Hikipe Norma	0.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
25	Ipali Simon	0.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
26	Obi Kera	0.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
27	Ekawi Kulai	0.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
28	Waripa Kulai	0.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
29	Susan Thomas	0.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
30	Lemson Mabiria	0.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
31	Josephine Mabiria	0.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
32	Alphones Mabiria	0.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
33	Eddie Mabiria	0.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
34	Timuku Hamaga	0.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
35	Pape Hamaga	0.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
36	Nalipa Hamaga	0.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
37	Kulai Pongarali	0.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
38	Thomas Tai	0.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
39	Palipe Angoli	0.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
40	Rose Palipe	0.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
41	Pani Angoli	0.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
42	Pulupe Angoli	0.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
43	Ligai Angoli	0.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
44	Tai Angoli	0.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
45	Mrs Pani Angoli	0.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
46	Palope Kulai	0.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
47	Aliabe Kulai	0.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
48	Agi Kulai	0.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
49	Ipali Simon	0.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
50	Ipali Wariame	0.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
51	Danny Matiabe	0.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
52	Yanale Erene	0.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
53	Palibe Abulaya	0.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
54	Paware Abulaya	0.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
55	Thomas Ekawi	0.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
56	Ai Mukupigi	0.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
57	Tapale Ekawi	0.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
58	Undiape Kulai	0.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
59	Kama Kulai	0.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
60	Ekawe Kulai	0.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
61	Peter Pipe	0.00	10,000.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
	Total	1,177,207.50	610,000.00	305,000.00	305,000.00	2,397,207.50	270,884.45	2,668,091.95

COSTS

21. 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 award the plaintiffs only half of their costs as I have found their claims to be exaggerated.

ORDER

1. Damages are payable by the third defendant to each plaintiff whose name appears in the Schedule, in the amount shown for each plaintiff.
   
2. In addition, interest is payable by the third defendant 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 third defendant shall pay half of the costs of the entire proceedings of the plaintiffs whose names appear in the Schedule, on a party-party basis, to be taxed if not agreed.
   

SCHEDULE

No	Plaintiff’s name	Total damages (K)	Interest (K)	Total damages + interest (K)
1	Lemson Mabiria	150,000.00	16,950.00	166,950.00
2	Thompson Moyali Mukupigo	280,000.00	31,640.00	311,640.00
3	John Angai Piago	295,460.00	33,386.98	328,846.98
4	Andy Hamaga	236,786.50	26,756.87	263,543.37
5	Palipe Angoli	151,400.00	17,108.20	168,508.20
6	Kulai Pongarali	131,300.00	14,836.90	146,136.90
7	Alice Piago	24,854.00	2,808.50	27,662.50
8	Pani Angoli	25,456.00	2,876.53	28,332.53
9	Palope Kulai	23,550.00	2,661.15	26,211.15
10	Peter Pipe	23,365.00	2,640.25	26,005.25
11	Akori Piago	21,485.00	2,427.81	23,912.81
12	David Agobe	23,960.00	2,707.48	26,667.48
13	Ekawi Kulai	21,850.00	2,469.05	24,319.05
14	Susan Mukupigo	21,400.00	2,418.20	23,818.20
15	Jackson Hamaga	46,341.00	5,236.53	51,577.53
16	Thonny B Dambo	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
17	Leo Koyabe	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
18	Simon Mutz	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
19	Ruth Alusis	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
20	Agnes Kulai	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
21	Agobe Matibe	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
22	Hangu Hagupi	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
23	Amale Topi	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
24	Hikipe Norma	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
25	Ipali Simon	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
26	Obi Kera	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
27	Ekawi Kulai	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
28	Waripa Kulai	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
29	Susan Thomas	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
30	Lemson Mabiria	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
31	Josephine Mabiria	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
32	Alphones Mabiria	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
33	Eddie Mabiria	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
34	Timuku Hamaga	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
35	Pape Hamaga	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
36	Nalipa Hamaga	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
37	Kulai Pongarali	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
38	Thomas Tai	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
39	Palipe Angoli	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
40	Rose Palipe	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
41	Pani Angoli	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
42	Pulupe Angoli	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
43	Ligai Angoli	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
44	Tai Angoli	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
45	Mrs Pani Angoli	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
46	Palope Kulai	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
47	Aliabe Kulai	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
48	Agi Kulai	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
49	Ipali Simon	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
50	Ipali Wariame	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
51	Danny Matiabe	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
52	Yanale Erene	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
53	Palibe Abulaya	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
54	Paware Abulaya	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
55	Thomas Ekawi	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
56	Ai Mukupigi	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
57	Tapale Ekawi	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
58	Undiape Kulai	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
59	Kama Kulai	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
60	Ekawe Kulai	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
61	Peter Pipe	20,000.00	2,260.00	22,260.00
	Total	2,397,207.50	270,884.45	2,668,091.95

Judgment accordingly.
_________________________________________________________________
Posman Kua Aisi Lawyers: Lawyers for the Plaintiffs
Solicitor-General: Lawyer for the Defendants