Nalepe v Porgera Local Level Government Special Purpose Authority [2021] PGNC 432; N9265 (10 November 2021)

N9265

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

OS (HR) NO 2 OF 2020

BETWEEN:
RUBEN NALEPE

for himself and on behalf of Pulumaini Ambo Endeme clan members who are entitled to royalty payments from the Porgera Gold Mine project whose names appear at schedule no 1 attached to the originating summons

First Plaintiff

AND:
KULE LAYO

for himself and on behalf of Pulumaini Ambo Wagia clan members who are entitled to royalty payments from the Porgera Gold Mine project whose names appear at schedule no 2 attached to the originating summons

Second Plaintiff

AND:
YANALE LARE

for himself and on behalf of Pulumaini Ambo Amu clan members who are entitled to royalty payments from the Porgera Gold Mine project whose names appear at schedule no 3 attached to the originating summons

Third Plaintiff

AND:
PERA ITAWI

for himself and on behalf of Pulumaini Ambo Gai clan members who are entitled to royalty payments from the Porgera Gold Mine project whose names appear at schedule no 4 attached to the originating summons

Fourth Plaintiff

AND:
LOO ENO

for himself and on behalf of Pulumaini Epeya clan members who are entitled to royalty payments from the Porgera Gold Mine project whose names appear at schedule no 5 attached to the originating summons

Fifth Plaintiff

AND:
BUKA ANJALI

for himself and on behalf of Anga Waria clan members who are entitled to royalty payments from the Porgera Gold Mine project whose names appear at schedule no 6 attached to the originating summons

Sixth Plaintiff

AND:
PAWE MENEPA

for himself and on behalf of Angalaini Oyopen clan members who are entitled to royalty payments from the Pogera Gold Mine project whose names appear at schedule no 7 attached to the originating summons

Seventh Plaintiff

AND:
KIMALEYA ONDALANE

for himself and on behalf of Tieni Yagua clan members who are entitled to royalty payments from the Porgera Gold Mine project whose names appear at schedule no 8 attached to the originating summons

Eighth Plaintiff

AND:
BILLY YANGUAN

for himself and on behalf of Waiwa Lunda clan members who are entitled to royalty payments from the Porgera Gold Mine project whose names appear at schedule no 9 attached to the originating summons

Ninth Plaintiff

AND:
NELSON AKIKO

for himself and on behalf of Tieni Waingalo clan members who are entitled to royalty payments from the Pogera Gold Mine project whose names appear at schedule no 10 attached to the originating summons

Tenth Plaintiff

AND:
THOMAS ANDITA

for himself and on behalf of Pulumaini Nalepe Endeme clan members who are entitled to royalty payments from the Porgera Gold Mine project whose names appear at schedule no 11 attached to the originating summons

Eleventh Plaintiff

AND:
FREDERICK IPARA
for himself and on behalf of Pakien Kingime clan members
Twelfth Plaintiff

AND:
MARK EKEPA
for himself and on behalf of Mamai Kensa sub-clan members
Thirteenth Plaintiff

AND:
NIXON MANGAPE

for himself and on behalf of Tieni Wuape clan members who are recipients and entitled to royalty payments from the Porgera Gold Mine project whose names appear at schedule no 1 attached to the originating summons

Fourteenth Plaintiff

AND:
JOHN KULINA

for himself and on behalf of Tieni Lakima clan members who are recipients and entitled to royalty payments from the Porgera Gold Mine

Fifteenth Plaintiff

AND:
EKALE KANGALIA

for himself and on behalf of Tieni Akira clan members who are recipients and entitled to royalty payments from the Porgera Gold Mine

Sixteenth Plaintiff

AND:
IPAIA LARA

for himself and on behalf of Tieni Kaimalo clan members who are recipients and entitled to royalty payments from the Porgera Gold Mine

Seventeenth Plaintiff

AND:
SOLE TARO

for himself and on behalf of Tuanda Yapala clan members who are recipients and entitled to royalty payments from the Porgera Gold Mine

Eighteenth Plaintiff

AND:
OYOMBO AMBI

for himself and on behalf of Tuanda Ulupa clan members who are recipients and entitled to royalty payments from the Porgera Gold Mine

Nineteenth Plaintiff

AND:
JOB KUTATO

for himself and on behalf of Angalaini Piko clan members who are recipients and entitled to royalty payments from the Porgera Gold Mine

Twentieth Plaintiff

AND:
PULAPIA MARAKOS TEKAIPA

for himself and on behalf of Angalaini Huliwali clan members who are recipients and entitled to royalty payments from the Porgera Gold Mine

Twenty-First Plaintiff

AND:
PORGERA LOCAL LEVEL GOVERNMENT SPECIAL PURPOSE AUTHORITY
Defendant

Waigani: Narokobi J
2021: 24^th September, 10^th November

TRUSTS – whether relationship was a trustee/beneficiary relationship under a trust and or constructive trust - whether Trustees and Executors Act, Ch 289 applies to a constructive trust - whether trustee breached duty of utmost good faith to beneficiary – power of the court where trustee’s duty breached.

APPLICATION OF LAW – whether laws can have retrospective application when circumstances have changed.

The Plaintiffs are clan agents and landowners of the Porgera goldmine under the now expired Special Mining Lease. Under the various agreements between the State and the provincial government, the landowners are entitled to royalties paid to the Enga Provincial government. These royalties are paid to the defendant who then distributes it to them. The defendant is created by proclamation by the relevant Minister under the Local Level Government Administration Act 1996 and her functions are provided for in her Constitution. They have not been paid these royalties since 2016. They claim that the arrangement is a trust relationship and the resulting duties have been breached by mismanagement, corruption, breach of laws and loss of confidence in the ability of the trustee to perform its duties. They therefore ask the court to appoint a new trustee to pay their royalties. The defendant says that the only reason it did not pay was because of a court order, not to pay and it did not have board members at the relevant time.

Held:

(1) The relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant was one of a trust as the defendant had no beneficial interest in the royalty money it held (Dumal Dibiaso Incorporated Land Group No 1664 v Kuma (2005) SC805, followed).
(2) The trust was a constructive trust (Dumal Dibiaso Incorporated Land Group No 1664, followed).
(3) The Trustees and Executors Act, Ch 289 applies to a constructive trust (Kewa v Kombo (2016) SC1542 followed).
(4) There was no evidence of mismanagement, corruption and breach of laws, but the fact that the plaintiffs have not been paid for the last five years showed a loss of confidence in their ability to manage the landowner’s royalty monies.
(5) Since there was a breach of the duty of the trustee to maintain the confidence of the beneficiaries, the defendant should be ordered to pay the plaintiff’s royalty monies.
(6) The current clan vetting exercise does not apply to the current plaintiffs who are entitled to royalties under the now expired SML 1 of Porgera goldmine in Enga Province (Polem Enterprise Ltd v Attorney General (2008) SC911, followed).

Cases Cited:

In the Matter of an Application by Stephen and Patsy Tong (2008) N3441
Dumal Dibiaso Incorporated Land Group No 1664 v Kuma (2005) SC805
Kewa v Kombo (2016) SC1542
Malewo v Faulkner (2009) SC960
Mathew Poia v ANZ Bank (2001) N2049
Polem Enterprise Ltd v Attorney General (2008) SC911

Statutes Cited

Constitution
Local Level Government Administration Act 1996
Trustees and Executors Act Ch 289

Counsel:

Mr. R. Mannrai, for the First, Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eight, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Plaintiffs
Mr. E. Sasingian, for the Fourth Plaintiff
Mr P. Harry, for the Twelfth Plaintiff
Mr P. Mawa, for the Thirteenth Plaintiff
Mr J, Cappo, for the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Sixteenth, Seventeenth, Eighteenth, Nineteenth, Twentieth, Twenty-first Plaintiffs
Ms. J. Nandape, for the Defendant

JUDGEMENT

10^th November, 2021

1. NAROKOBI J: This is a case commenced by a number of clan agents of the landowners of the Porgera Special Mining Lease or SML against the Porgera Local Level Government Special Purpose Authority (which the parties refer to as “PDA” and I will use that acronym in my judgement) for payment of royalties it holds on behalf of the landowners.
   
2. The proceedings have been commenced by way of Originating Summons seeking a number of declaratory relief and related orders.
   
3. The background to the proceedings is well covered in the affidavit materials filed and the written submissions of counsel.
   
4. The dispute centres around whether the PDA has competently and transparently performed its functions under its Constitution, and therefore should be divested of its role and responsibilities to manage and disburse funds it is legally mandated to do.
   
5. PDA is a body set up through a proclamation by the Minister for Provincial Government Affairs under s 42(1) of the Local-Level Government Administration Act 1997. Its functions are stated in her Constitution.
   
6. The PDA is the mandated authority to receive the 50% of the 2% royalty (or 1%) initially earmarked for the Enga Provincial Government. This arrangement is set out under a number of instruments, but more particularly the Memorandum of Agreement between the Porgera SML Landowners and the Enga Provincial Government dated 12 May 1989 and the Memorandum of Agreement between the Porgera SML Landowners and the State, also dated 12 May 1989.
   
7. The arrangement is for the developer, Barrick Niugini Limited (BNL) to pay the 1% royalties for the Porgera SML Landowners in the following manner:
   
   • 20% for the Children’s Trust Fund;
   • 16% for the Young Adult’s Trust Fund;
   • 30% for the Adults Trust Fund;
   • 24% for the Porgera Landowners Association; and
   • 10% for the Porgera Development Authority.
     
8. From the evidence tendered, the Plaintiffs are saying that the PDA has been mismanaged and no longer enjoys the confidence of the beneficiaries, so to speak, and should stop managing the royalty funds intended for the Porgera SML landowners. The plaintiffs rely on authorities such as Dumal Dibiaso Incorporated Land Group v Kola Kuma (2005) SC805 and say that for all intents a constructive trust exists and the defendant has failed in her fiduciary duties to act in utmost good faith. The plaintiffs further submit that the terms of the Trustees and Executors Act Ch 289 should now apply.
   
9. The plaintiffs say that the defendants have not paid their royalties since 2016.
   
10. On the other hand, the defendant’s position is that the only reason they have not paid is because of the issues surrounding board membership and the court order obtained by the plaintiffs on 7 August 2020.
    
11. So, it seems that the defendant has no issue with the moneys being paid out. I therefore envisage the issues I have to determine to be as follows:
    
    1. Has the defendant met its fiduciary duties under its enabling instruments?
    2. Can the plaintiffs challenge the legal status of the defendant in these current proceedings?
    3. If it has not, and the defendant has not met its fiduciary duties, are the present plaintiffs entitled to access the royalties given that there are attempts to appoint new clan agents under a new SML for Porgera?
    4. If they can access the royalty monies, how should it be paid and for what period should the royalties cover?
    5. Finally, what orders should the court then make in the circumstances of the case?
       
12. Considering that this is the common position, and that there is no dispute that the plaintiffs are entitled to these monies, I have no difficulty in ordering that they be paid the monies subject to the court being adequately informed on the method of effecting payment. The method of effecting payments depends on whether the defendant has met its fiduciary duties to the plaintiffs. If it has, then it should proceed to process their payment as is required by law to do so. If it has not, then how should the plaintiffs receive their royalties?
    
13. On the first issue, I have had regard to the authority of Dumal Dibiaso Incorporated Land Group No 1664 v Kuma submitted by the plaintiffs. In that case, the court found the following circumstances as creating a constructive trust:
    

“There is no dispute that under the Forestry Act, NFA receives money from the project developer in the form of royalty and other payments of which a certain proportion is earmarked for the customary resource owners for their benefit. The interest of customary resource owners is required to be represented by a corporate body or by the Local-Level Government in the area. The common practice is that customary resource owners incorporate land groups under the Land Groups Incorporation Act and in some cases companies under the Companies Act or business groups under the Business Groups Incorporation Act. The incorporated body is then required to operate bank accounts through which the funds are paid by the NFA to be distributed by the management of the corporate body to their members. The corporate body is required to expend and invest moneys received by it as it sees fit, but subject to the articles and rules of the corporate body and any reasonable rules and procedures regarding management of bank accounts designed to ensure the payments are invested or expended for the collective benefit of the owners of the project area: see Regulation 235 (6). The board is given power to suspend operation of the bank account if in its opinion, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the funds have been expended or invested in breach of the articles and the rules: Regulation 235 (7).

It appears that although there is no provision in the Act which creates a public trust to hold those funds received and due to resource owners as is the case with other Statutes dealing with resource development (see. s. 168 (4) and s. 176 of the Oil and Gas Act 1989), this intention is clear from the scheme of the Act that the NFA receives or retains the funds, holds it and manages its distribution. It is also clear that the NFA maintains an interest in those funds paid to the corporate bodies and not only that, but also in its final disposition by the corporate body, to ensure that they are used for legitimate purposes.”

14. In this case, the defendant, PDA receives money from the developer, BNL for the benefit of the customary landowners under a legislative arrangement. There is no express provision creating a trust, but PDA holds the money on behalf of the landowners. The plaintiffs submit that such a scenario provides for a trust relationship. Taking a contrary view, the defendant contends that there is no trust. More particularly there is no trust instrument. This therefore negates the application of the Trustees and Executors Act, Ch 289. I agree that there is no express trust. But I have had regard to case authorities such as In the Matter of an Application by Stephen and Patsy Tong (2008) N3441 and Kewa v Kombo (2016) SC1542 which applied the Trustees and Executors Act to a constructive trust, and I am inclined to follow those authorities as good law. But that does not conclude that issue. The question then arises as to whether such arrangement is a constructive trust? The case of Dumal Dibiaso Incorporated Land Group No 1664 v Kuma also provides guidance on this question:
    

“A constructive trust is a trust raised by construction of law or arising by operation of law, as distinguished from express trust. They do not arise by agreement or from intention of the parties but by operation of the law. Blacks Law Dictionary 6th edition -Centennial Edition (1891-1991) states, ‘where the circumstances of a transaction are such that the person who takes the legal estate in property cannot also enjoy the beneficial interest without necessarily violating some established principles of equity, the court will raise a constructive trust, and fasten it upon the conscience of the legal owner, so as to convert him into a trustee for the parties who in equity are entitled to the beneficial enjoyment.”

15. Clause 15(g) of the PDA Constitution states that it receives moneys paid to it by the Provincial Government and pays it out to the landowners in accordance with the terms of the Porgera Agreements.
    
16. Here PDA cannot enjoy beneficial interest in the royalty funds, and I therefore find that PDA operates under a constructive trust, where it is the trustee, and the Porgera SML Landowners are the beneficiaries.
    
17. Having found that the present arrangement is a constructive trust, what naturally follows is that certain duties are placed on the trustee. In Mathew Poia v ANZ Bank (2001) N2049 the nature of the relationship is explained:
    

“The essence of the trust therefore is the fiduciary relationship, that is, the relationship between the trustee and the beneficiary. The trustee is accordingly bound to exercise rights and powers and to act in good faith and in the interest of the beneficiaries. This means that the trustee has a duty of confidence, honesty and responsibility to act for the benefit of the beneficiary. This fiduciary relationship is breached if the trustee acts for his own advantage or for the advantage of a person or persons who are not beneficiaries where the actions of the trustee results in some disadvantage to, or detriment suffered by the beneficiaries. A court of equity would not permit a person in a fiduciary position to make a personal profit or to be placed in a conflict of interest situation.”

18. The plaintiffs (especially the 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, 5^th, 6^th, 7^th, 8^th, 9^th, 10^th, 11^th, 12^th, 14^th, 15^th, 16^th, 17^th, 18^th, 19^th, and 21^st) submits that from the evidence tendered the following grounds has been established to demonstrate that the defendant has breached its duty as a trustee:
    
    • There has been gross mismanagement of the financial affairs of the PDA;
    • There has been widespread corruption in the administration of the affairs of the PDA;
    • The PDA has persistently exceeded its powers or disobeyed applicable laws and mismanaged the Royalty funds; and
    • There has been widespread dissatisfaction about the matter or matters among the SML Landowners.
      
19. On the other hand, the defendant says that the only reason the royalties have not been paid is because PDA did not have a board in place in the last quarter of 2016. Only when it had a board in place, several court actions were commenced including restraining orders were obtained which put a stop to the payment of the royalties.
    
20. After having considered the evidence relied on by the plaintiffs, I am not satisfied that they have provided clear and direct evidence of mismanagement, corruption and not complying with the law. Most of the evidence relied on comes from evidence tendered in other court proceedings, and I am not sure whether there have been findings of facts made in relation to those evidence in the proceedings they were filed, for example the affidavit of John Ondalane in OS 907 of 2014. In the absence of that, I cannot make any conclusive findings. This is a matter commenced by originating summons and I therefore do not propose to go into a substantial fact-finding enquiry (Malewo v Faulkner (2009) SC960).
    
21. What I am however satisfied with on the balance of probability is that there has been a loss of confidence in the ability of PDA to perform its functions, as it is now five (5) years, and no royalty has been paid to the plaintiffs. It may be the fault of the plaintiffs, or the defendant or even the Department of Provincial Affairs. Whatever it is, the fact that more than half of the SML landowners have come to court to ask for the payment of their royalties suggest a loss of confidence in the ability of the defendant to competently manage its affairs. Taking account for instance National Goal No 2 of the Constitution on equality and participation, it appears that the PSPA has not meaningfully engaged with the plaintiffs who are legitimate landowners.
    
22. Persons who are conferred positions of trust are required to enjoy the confidence of those whom they manage their affairs for, as it consists of a duty uberimae fidei, or “utmost good faith.” For instance, the executive government in our parliamentary democracy is required to govern on the back of the confidence of the legislature.
    
23. The next question is then, can the plaintiffs challenge the legal status of the defendant in the present proceedings?
    
24. In my view, any question concerning the legal viability of the defendant are questions that must be raised against the relevant Minister for Provincial Affairs under the auspices of the Local Level Government Administration Act, as the Defendant is a creature of legislative fiat, and its continued existence, must be laid squarely with the authorities that created it. It cannot be raised as an issue where the relevant authorities are not represented.
    
25. I am also not persuaded to appoint trustees under s 28 of the Trustees and Executors Act, although I have the power to do so. I do not have sufficient information before me, as to who I should appoint as trustee, such as their names, qualification, experience and good standing.
    
26. The next issue is whether the present plaintiffs are entitled to access the royalties given that there are attempts to appoint new clan agents under a new SML for the Porgera goldmine?
    
27. The plaintiffs are entitled to the royalties due to them under the now expired SML, that is from the period in 2016 they were not paid up until the end of the SML in 2019. The parties refer to it as SML 1, and I adopt this reference. Anything after that is the subject of the current clan vetting exercise being undertaken by the relevant state authorities. The plaintiffs are therefore entitled to royalties due for 2016 up until the expiry of the SML 1 period in 2019. Anything concluded now cannot have retrospective application to the parties in the expired SML (Polem Enterprise Ltd v Attorney General (2008) SC911).
    
28. I have found that the plaintiffs can access the royalty monies from 2016 up until 2019, the next question is how should it be paid and how much is each plaintiff entitled to?
    
29. I note from the Originating Summons that the plaintiffs claim is in relation to the 8% of the 2% royalty (or 16% of the 1% royalty) held in the PDA Young Adults Trust Account No. 1001020714, Bank South Pacific, and secondly the 15% of the 2% royalty (or 30% of the 1% royalty) held in SML Landowners Trust Account No 1001020810, Bank South Pacific.
    
30. This is a lump sum and has to be apportioned to each of the plaintiffs on a distribution formula. On this question, I have not been adequately assisted. I will therefore order that the parties make further submissions to court setting out their land area within the Porgera SML area. If the formula submitted by the fourth plaintiff does not have any serious objections, then this should be the formula. The reason I did not accept this formula was that the fourth plaintiff did not file any affidavits to support its contention.
    
31. After the court establishes the formula which will determine how much each clan is entitled to, I am of the view that the monies should be paid to the Lawyer’s Trust account for them to distribute the monies to their respective clients, rather than to the National Court under s 43(1) of the Trustees and Executors Act. They have represented their clients and since judgement has been decided in their favour, paying the money into the National Court will contribute to further delays. In my view the lawyers should accept some measure of responsibility and distribute monies to their clients. They know well the onerous responsibilities they bear in relation to managing their trust account under the provisions of the Lawyers Act 1986 and the Professional Conduct Rules, let alone the Criminal Code.
    
32. I am not inclined to order that a third party becomes a trustee to distribute the funds, when it is not a party to the proceedings for the reasons I have stated above.
    
33. To ensure transparency and accountability in the process, the payment of the royalty should only be made in Porgera, Enga Province, unless a plaintiff has a bank account in which case the money will be deposited to that account.
    
34. Any unclaimed moneys or money that is disputed shall be returned to the defendant to hold in trust until the dispute is resolved.
    
35. The final issue then is what orders should I make after deciding on each of the issues raised by the parties. On this issue, I have to give paramount consideration to the dispensation of justice (s 158(2) of the Constitution) given the specific circumstances of the case.
    
36. I make the following orders, considering my discussion on the issues as follows:
    
    1. It is declared that the defendant has failed to pay the Porgera Special Mining Lease landowners their accrued royalty payments from the following accounts held in trust by the Defendant since 2016 up until the expiry of SML 1 in 2019:
       
       1. PDA Young Adults Trust Account No. 1001020714 Bank South Pacific to which 8% of the 2% royalty [or 16% of 1% royalty] is paid into by Barrick (Niugini) Ltd for the benefit of the young adults of the Special Mining Lease landowners of Porgera; and
       2. SML Landowners Trust Account No. 1001020810 Bank South Pacific [Adults Trust Account], to which 15% of the 2% royalty [or 30% of the 1% royalty] is paid into by Barrick (Niugini) Ltd for the benefit of the adults of the Special Mining Lease landowners of Porgera
          
    2. It is declared that the defendant has breached and is continuing to breach Section 15(g) of the Constitution of the defendant and its fiduciary duties as trustee to the Porgera Special Mining Lease landowners by failing to pay the Porgera Special Mining Lease Landowners their accrued royalty payments from the following accounts administered by the defendants since 2016 up until the expiry of SML 1 in 2019:
       
       1. PDA Young Adults Trust Account No. 1001020714 Bank South Pacific to which 8% of the 2% royalty [or 16% of 1% royalty] is paid into by Barrick (Niugini) Ltd for the benefit of the young adults of the Special Mining Lease landowners of Porgera; and
          
       2. SML Landowners Trust Account No. 1001020810 Bank South Pacific [Adults Trust Account], to which 15% of the 2% royalty [or 30% of the 1% royalty] is paid into by Barrick (Niugini) Ltd for the benefit of the adults of the Special Mining Lease landowners of Porgera
          
    3. Subject to the following orders, the temporary orders made on 7 August 2020 in this proceeding is hereby dissolved.
       
    4. Within 14 days from today, the plaintiffs and defendant agree to a formula for distribution of the royalty portion for each clan (referred to in term 1 and 2 of this order), whether it is as proposed by the fourth plaintiff or some other formula, which shall then be sanctioned by the court.
       
    5. If the parties cannot agree on a formula, the court will decide on the appropriate formula based on any relevant affidavit materials filed.
       
    6. Upon the court being satisfied of the formula, it shall order the release of the specific portion due to each clan to their lawyer’s trust account to be distributed in Porgera to their clients.
       
    7. A particular plaintiff can in the alternative seek orders that its portion of royalty be distributed by the defendant, in which case, it must file an affidavit to that effect within 14 days from today.
       
    8. The defendant shall provide good faith assistance if any to the plaintiff’s lawyers they may require executing payment to the Porgera SML 1 landowners.
       
    9. The plaintiff’s lawyers are entitled to reasonable costs from the royalty moneys in the distribution exercise of the royalty funds in Porgera.
       
    10. By or before 21 days after the distribution of the royalties, the lawyers or as the case may be, the defendant, shall file an affidavit providing a report on how the royalties were paid to each of the landowning clan members of SML 1 as well as the expenses of the lawyers in the distribution of the royalty funds.
        
    11. Any money that is disputed by the clan agents and or their members shall be returned to the defendant to hold in trust pending further negotiations and or court action to resolve the dispute.
        
    12. The matter shall return to court on 25 November 2021 at 9.30am for the court to attend to terms 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the orders made today.
        
    13. All other reliefs sought by the plaintiffs are refused.
        
    14. Except for any specific orders for costs made, costs of the entire proceedings up until today shall be paid by the defendant, to be taxed if not agreed.
        

Orders accordingly.
________________________________________________________________
Mannrai Lawyers: Lawyers for the First, Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eight, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Plaintiffs
Kamen Lawyers: Lawyers for the Fourth Plaintiff
Harry Lawyers: Lawyers for the Twelfth Plaintiff
Mawa Lawyers: Lawyers for the Thirteenth Plaintiff
Capo Legal Practice: Lawyers for the for the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Sixteenth, Seventeenth, Eighteenth, Nineteenth, Twentieth & Twenty-first Plaintiffs
Nandape and Associates Lawyers: Lawyers for the Defendant