Kasap v Morere [2024] PGNC 435; N11108 (6 December 2024)

N11108

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

WS NO 1061 OF 2017

BETWEEN:

MELCHIOR KASAP for himself and 66 others whose names are listed in Schedule 1 attached herein who are all villagers of Mirap Village, Madang Province.
Plaintiff

AND:
SENIOR INSPECTOR MORERE AND OTHER POLICE MEN OF THE BOGIA POLICE STATION
First Defendant

AND:
INSPECTOR JACOB BANDO AND OTHER POLICE MEN AND WOMEN OF THE MADANG TASK FORCE
Second Defendant

AND:
INSPECTOR TONY WAGAMBIE JR, PROVINCIAL POLICE COMMANDER, MADANG PROVINCE
Third Defendant
AND:
SAM INGUBA, POLICE COMMISSIONER
Fourth Defendant

AND:
THE INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA
Fifth Defendant

Madang: Narokobi J
2024: 8^th May and 6^th December

DAMAGES –Stolen Monies and Destruction of Property – Reasonable Sum Considered and Awarded.

DAMAGES - General Damages for Negligence – Pain and Suffering in an Illegal Police Raid – Appropriate Amount Considered and Awarded.

COMPENSATORY DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF HUMAN RIGHTS – Amount Awarded for Each Occasion of Breach of Human Rights- Award Based on Comparable Cases.

Facts
The plaintiffs were villagers of Mirap Village along the North Coast of Madang. They claim that they were the subject of an illegal police raid. In the raid, they allege that they were threatened, ordered at gunpoint to congregate to meet the police demands, had property destroyed and were physically and verbally assaulted. The defendants did not file any defence nor tendered any affidavits. Liability was determined in their favour and the matter returns for assessment of damages.

Held:

(1) Each of the 67 Plaintiffs are awarded specific amounts in damages for money stolen, property destroyed, general damages and compensatory damages for breach of human rights in the sum total of K2,380,665.00.

Cases Cited:
Huaimbukie v Baugen (2004) N2589
Jonathan Mangope Paraia v The State (1995) N1343
Kasap v Morere (2022) N9824
Kunnga v Independent State of Papua New Guinea (2005) N2864
Mano v Wagambie Junior (2023) N10410
Mel v Pakalia (2005) SC790
Munvi v Takai (2018) N7100
Tunn v Independent State of Papua New Guinea (2006) N2973

TRIAL
This is a trial on assessment of damages.

Counsel
Mr C Momoi, for the Plaintiffs
Mr E Manihambu, for the Defendants

JUDGMENT

6^th December 2024

1. NAROKOBI J: Plaintiffs claim damages from negligence and breaches of human rights occasioned by the First and Second Defendants. Liability was determined in favour of the Plaintiffs on 15 August 2022. State was found vicariously liable for an unlawful police raid of Mirap Village, in Bogia District of Madang Province on 13, 14 and 15 October 2008. Plaintiffs proven claim was that the policemen and women subjected them to verbal insults, physical assault, destruction of property, unlawful searches of bilums and houses and theft of their property. The Plaintiffs suffered from fear and shock, pain, destruction and loss of properties.
   

Background

2. The facts which constitute the claim can be found in the decision on liability - Kasap v Morere (2022) N9824. In that judgement I make specific findings on the human rights of the Plaintiffs that were breached. The rights that were breached are referred to in my judgement.
   
3. Melchior Kasap is the lead Plaintiff with 66 other persons whose names appear on Schedule 1 attached to the Statement of Claim. Together they constitute the Plaintiffs in this case.
   
4. Plaintiffs’ details of their claims against the Defendants are found in the Statement of Claim:
   
   • K3, 978.00 stolen or burnt with houses.
   • K346, 445.00 value of structures destroyed.
   • Consultancy fees.
   • General Damages.
   • Special Damages.
   • Compensation under ss 57 and 58 of Constitution for breach of human rights.
   • 8% interest.
   • Costs.
     
5. Each of the Plaintiffs tendered an affidavit. A total of 70 affidavits were filed and admitted into evidence without objection from the State. No evidence was led by the State, but I allowed the State to make submissions on the points of law on the relevant principles applicable to issue of quantum of damages. I have considered both submissions in my judgment.
   

Issues

6. Several issues arise for determination. To enable me to conveniently understand the submissions of the parties, I have adopted the issues raised by the Plaintiffs in their submissions, as they sufficiently cover all the questions raised by the circumstances of this case:
   
   • Who are the Plaintiff whose monies were stolen?
   • What amount for destruction to properties each Plaintiff is entitled to receive?
   • What is the appropriate general damages for each Plaintiff?
   • What is the amount of special damages should be awarded to each Plaintiff?
   • What is appropriate compensation for breach of human rights for each Plaintiff?
     
7. I consider each of these claims. I do not make any award for exemplary damages. The reasons for this are stated below. I have accepted the State’s submission and make no award. I also note that the Plaintiffs do not submit for this head of damages.
   

Legal Basis of the Claim

8. Damages for tortious claims occasioned by the conduct of the servants and or agents of the State, find their legal basis in s 1 of the Wrongs (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1975. Further claims for compensatory damages for breach of human rights is provided for in ss 57 and 58 of the Constitution, especially s 58(2) and (3).
   

Principles on Assessment of Damages

9. The principles on assessment of damages for claims under negligence and for breach of human rights are settled. A growing volume of cases in this area of the law provide useful material for comparison. Similar cases will be referred to. I set out below the principles I have relied on in my assessment of the damages I believe the Plaintiffs should be entitled to. They are restated from Mel v Pakalia (2005) SC790 [from the headnotes]:
   
   • The plaintiff has the onus of proving his loss 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. If an allegation forms an essential part of a person’s case, that person has the onus of proving the allegation. (Yooken Paklin v The State (2001) N2212, National Court, Jalina J.)
   • Corroboration of a claim is usually required and the corroboration must come from an independent source. (Albert Baine v The State (1995) N1335, National Court, Woods J; Kopung Brothers Business Group v Sakawar Kasieng [1997] PNGLR 331, National Court, Lenalia J.)
   • 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, National Court, Woods J.)
   • The same principles apply after default judgment is entered and the trial is on assessment of damages – even when the trial is conducted ex parte. A person who obtains a default judgment is not entitled as of right to receive any damages. Injury or damage suffered must still be proved by credible evidence. (Yange Lagan and Others v The State (1995) N1369, National Court, Injia J.)
   • If the evidence and pleadings are confusing, contradictory and inherently suspicious, the plaintiff will not discharge the onus of proving his losses on the balance of probabilities. It is conceivable that such a plaintiff will be awarded nothing. (Obed Lalip and Others v Fred Sikiot and The State (1996) N1457, National Court, Injia J.)
   • Where default judgment is granted, for damages to be assessed on a given set of facts as pleaded in a statement of claim, the evidence must support the facts pleaded. No evidence will be allowed in support of facts that are not pleaded. (MVIT v Tabanto [1995] PNGLR 214, Supreme Court, Kapi DCJ, Hinchliffe J, Sevua J; Waima v MVIT [1992] PNGLR 254, National Court, Woods J; MVIT v Pupune [1993] PNGLR 370, Supreme Court, Kapi DCJ, Jalina J, Doherty J; Tabie Mathias Koim and 28 Others v The State and Others [1998] PNGLR 247, National Court, Injia J.)
   • 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, National Court, Injia J.)
     
10. Claims for damages for negligence and human rights breaches arising from unlawful police raids occur regularly in this jurisdiction. Here are some cases in point. In Kunnga v Independent State of Papua New Guinea (2005) N2864 the National Court heard a claim arising from damages suffered from an illegal police raid and awarded special damages for items destroyed by the police. Huaimbukie v Baugen (2004) N2589 awarded general damages for pain and suffering and also for breach of human rights occasioned by police action. Tunn v Independent State of Papua New Guinea (2006) N2973 also awarded damages for destroyed items. In Munvi v Takai (2018) N7100, another police raid case, the court award damages for pain and suffering, loss of property, and breach of human rights.
    

Stolen Monies

11. I have considered the Plaintiffs evidence who claimed that they either, had their monies stolen or went missing or destroyed by the Defendants. The Defendant disagree but they offer no evidence to counter it. I agree with the Plaintiffs that these sums are reasonable considering that this was a village setting. Table One (1) provides the names of the Plaintiffs, and the amounts claimed and awarded.
    

Name of Plaintiff	Amount Claimed and Awarded.
Alexia Sangang	K800.00
Andrew Kurek	K50.00
Applonius Besem	K60.00
Barry Kawik	K150.00
Bonny Yamai	K400.00
Clements Yamang	K1, 500.00.
Hildagard Kulem	K7.00.
John Mosi	K300.00.
Johnson Gaiama	K500.00
Kathrin Kawik	K150.00
Laurence Pandore	K100.00.
Lina Maminge	K1,083.00.
Morris Alim	K400.00
Paisi Komang	K100.00
Petronella Mosi	K65.00
Total	K5,665.00

Table One (1) – Name of Plaintiffs and award for monies claimed to have been stolen.

Destruction of properties

12. According to the evidence tendered by the Plaintiffs, the illegal police raid, resulted in destruction of their properties, which includes houses and properties of Plaintiffs were also stolen. Table two (2) contains a summary of the evidence on damages suffered. I reproduce the table prepared by the Plaintiffs for ease of reference and for convenience’s sake.
    

Exhibit	Plaintiff	Damages Suffered
P16	Barlong Murei	Police got into his house and stole his bush knife.
P17	Barnabas Keturam	Police stole his mobile phone, radio and shoe
P18	Benjamin Tulem	Police stole his chickens
P20	Bonny Yamai	Police destroyed their bag of rice, container of petrol and lamp
P22	Clements Yamang	Police broke into his house
P24	David Gual	Police broke into his house
P26	Elis Francis	Police broke door of her house, destroyed utensils and stole 3 pigs from the fence.
P30	Gideon Kirerong	Police broke into his house, properties inside were destroyed and plants around the house chopped
P31	Gethrude Kapi	House was broken into, food and properties inside the house were destroyed and crops around the house were chopped.
P36	John Mosi	Police broke into his house and stole his money.
P37	Johnson Gaiama	Police broke into his house, stole money, and chopped betelnut trees and stole betelnut bunch.
P38	Jonathan Alim	Police broke into his house, betelnut tress in the yard chopped and their fruits stolen
P39	Kathrin Kawik	Her house broken into, plates of food stolen, utensils destroyed and money stolen
P41	Laurence Pandore	His house was broken into, sewing machine, radio and cassettes destroyed and money stolen.
P46	Magdaline Yalang	Police chopped down her betelnut trees and its fruits were stolen
P50	Melchior Kasap	Police broke his loud hailer
P52	Michael Murei	Police broke the door into his house, stole his fishing gun, knife and also broke into his chicken hut.
P53	Morris Alim	Police broke into his house, stole hunting gun, bush knife, destroyed utensils and stole his money
P54	Norman Alongo	Police broke into his house and stole his radio, destroyed his clothes, smoke and utensils. His betelnut and coconut trees were chopped with fruits stolen
P55	Paisi Komang	Police cut pawpaw and banana trees around his house
P56	Panam Baumur	Police chopped the betelnut trees around the house then broke into his house.
P57	Petronella Mosi	Police broke into his house, stole his money and mosquito net, and destroyed utensils.
P58	Roslyn Jacob	Police met her on the road to garden verbally insulted her saying, ‘holim ol meri nogut ol haitim man bilong ol insait lo pans blo ol’. Police attempted to ran over them with police vehicle so they took cover under a house. Police took her back to the village and used a tree branch to hit her. They destroyed her utensils and stole her grass knife.
P59	Sebastian Alongo	He was at his coconut plantation and pointed gun at him and forced him to the community hall. On the way 3 policemen hit him over his body that greatly pained him and caused him to fall onto the ground.
P60	Stanely Mainde	He was at Mirap Village. Police arrived and scared them with gun shots. Police hit his head with a tree branch causing him to fall onto the ground where they continue to hit him again using a gun. Police then swore at him.
P62	Suba Alongo	He was at Mirap Village and gun shots scared him so he ran away. Whilst he was away the police chopped down his betelnut trees and stole his bunch of betelnuts.
P63	Suguman Tule	She was her house sewing. The sudden gunshots by the police scared her and she went out of her house with her sleeping baby. A policeman insulted her saying, ‘Kaikai kan bilong mama blo upla, upla rascal ha? He used a tree branch to hit her on the buttock and back. The baby was shocked and excreted on her. She was forced at gun point to move to the community hall with further verbal insults by the police. They destroyed her sewing machine, poultry hut, water containers, chopped betelnut and coconut trees.
P65	Thadius Kalik	He was at his house and saw policemen with guns sitting on 4 police vehicles speeding into the village. The vehicles stopped and those police jumped off and started firing their guns. He took his wife and children and they went into hiding, but he returned and saw two policemen broke the door into his house and took out his DVD player onto the police vehicle and they then moved on. He was still in hiding and continued hearing gun shots by the police.
P66	Thadius Tulem	He is from Mirap Village. At the time of the raid by the police, his weighing cocoa scale was stolen as well as his bush knife.
P67	Thomas Gaiama	He was planting betelnut trees when police arrived. They swore and shot at him causing him to run away. Destroyed pig fence, and killed 4 pigs and stole 3 piglets from the pig fence and took them away on the police vehicles. They also stole a wheelbarrow pump.

Table Two – Damages suffered by the Plaintiffs

13. The Plaintiffs submit that the court should award a nominal sum of K1,000.00 each for the properties that were destroyed because no further evidence was provided apart from their assertions in the affidavits. The Defendants, on the other hand submit that nothing should be awarded. To some extent the Plaintiffs have conceded this point and are only asking for K1,000.00 in nominal terms for named and identified plaintiffs from the evidence tendered. Inflation from 2008 to present is also factored into the amount claimed. In the end I agree with the Plaintiffs’ submission as fair relying on cases such as Jonathan Mangope Paraia v The State (1995) N1343 and award K1,000.00 to each Plaintiff stated in Table three (3) below. Those Plaintiffs listed are as identified in their submissions filed on 12 April 2024.
    

General Damages

14. The plaintiffs experienced psychological trauma and fear, from the threat and assault at the hands of the Police officers. Each Plaintiff is awarded K5,000.00 in general damages. This is a fair amount and accord with many other similar cases, which I have referred to in my earlier part of the judgement.
    

Special Damages

15. Plaintiffs were villagers and needed assistance to put together claims. They were assisted by Scholar Kasap. Her help was in the form of obtaining their statements. Scholar Kasap claims K67,000.00 for her services. She says she spent money on stationaries, photocopies, transport fees. She collected the statements and presented them to the Public Solicitor’s lawyers. She should be entitled to be paid, but her claim appears to be exaggerated. In my view, this goes towards costs. I will reduce her claim and award K50,000.00, but award it as costs, which the Plaintiffs will be required to pay her when the State pays their costs.
    

Exemplary Damages

16. For exemplary damages I accept the Defendants’ submissions and award nothing. This claim was initiated in 2014, and the Plaintiffs have not actively prosecuted their case. At one stage the matter was listed for summary determination. In the circumstances, I do not award any exemplary damages.
    

Compensation for Breach of Human Rights

17. In my decision on liability referred to above, I found that the human rights of the plaintiffs were breached during the illegal raid. The rights breached were:
    

Section 36, Freedom from inhuman treatment

Breach of s 36 was occasioned by the illegal raid, discharge of firearm to cause fear, ordering plaintiffs at gunpoint, the assault, the swearing, and the destruction of property.

Section 37(1), Protection of the Law

Breach of s 37(1) happened when the police illegally entered their village and their residence and assaulted them and destroyed their properties. They failed to observe the law in their duties.

Section 41, Proscribed Acts

The way they were treated was also harsh and oppressive, not warranted by the circumstances ie subjecting the whole village to terror, and not reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.

Section 42, Liberty of the Person

Forcing the people to meet at the community hall at gun point, so that the plaintiffs can satisfy the defendants’ demand deprived them of their liberty.

Section 49, Right to Privacy

Police went into the privacy of their homes without any search warrants and took out items and destroyed clothes, utensils, and radios amongst other items. This is breach of the privacy of the plaintiffs.

Section 53, Protection from Unjust Deprivation of Property

Money was stolen, utensils and clothes destroyed, houses broken, and crops destroyed. These actions of the defendants deprived the plaintiffs of the use and enjoyment of their property contrary to s 53 of the Constitution.

18. The Plaintiffs submits that the Court should award K3,000.00 to each Plaintiff for the breach of their human rights. Considering cases such as Mano v Wagambie Junior (2023) N10410 (which the State relied on their submission) I award K5,000.00 for each occasion of the breach. Since there were six rights breached, I will award K30,000.00 to each Plaintiff.
    

Conclusion

19. From all that have been discussed above, the damages that should be awarded are summarised in Table three (3) below.
    

No	Plaintiff name	Monies Stolen	Properties Destroyed	General Damages	Breach of Human Rights	Total Award
1	AGUSTA WAKA			K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K35,000.00
2	ALEXIA SANGANG	K800.00		K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K35,800.00
3	ABDREW KASAP			K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K35,000.00
4	ANDREW KUREK	K50.00		K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K35,050.00
5	ANDREW KURUM			K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K35,000.00
6	ANSLEM DAGIL			K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K35,000.00
7	APPLONIUS BESSEN	K60.00		K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K35,060.00
8	ARNOLD MAIK			K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K35,000.00
9	BALONG MUREI		K1,000.00	K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K36,000.00
10	BARNABAS KETRAM		K1,000.00	K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K36,000.00
11	BARRY KAVIK	K150.00		K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K35,000.00
12	BENJAMIN TULEM		K1,000.00	K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K36,000.00
13	BONAVENTURA MUKOL			K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K35,000.00
14	BONNY YAMAI	K400.00	K1,000.00	K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K36,400.00
15	CAMILUS WINKI			K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K35,000.00
16	CLEMENTS YAMANG	K1,500.00	K1,000.00	K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K37,500.00
17	DAVID BESSEN			K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K35,000.00
18	DAVID GUAL		K1,000.00	K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K36,000.00
19	EDITH WINKI			K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K35,000.00
20	ELIS FRENCIS		K1,000.00	K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K36,000.00
21	ELIS GAIAMA			K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K35,000.00
22	FELIX AYU			K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K35,000.00
23	GABRIEL LAMUK (JR)GALA			K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K35,000.00
24	GEDION KIRERON		K1,000.00	K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K36,000.00
25	GETRUDE KAPI		K1,000.00	K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K36,000.00
26	GODFRIED KOMANG			K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K35,000.00
27	GREGOR IWOK			K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K35,000.00
28	HILDEGARD KULEM	K7.00		K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K35,007.00
29	JAYLINE MUNGER			K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K35,000.00
30	JEREMAIAH COSMAS			K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K35,000.00
31	JOHN MOSI	K300.00	K1,000.00	K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K36,300.00
32	JOHNSON GAIAMA	K500.00	K1,000.00	K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K36,500.00
33	JONATHAN ALIM		K1,000.00	K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K36,000.00
34	KATHRINE KAVIK	K150.00	K1,000.00	K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K36,150.00
35	KIRIMA MANGUN			K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K35,000.00
36	LAWRENCE PANDORE	K100.00	K1,000.00	K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K36,100.00
37	LINA MAMINGE	K1,083.00		K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K36,083.00
38	FRANCISCA YAMAI			K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K35,000.00
39	LUDWINA MADUL			K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K35,000.00
40	LUKAS MARAO			K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K35,000.00
41	MAGDALINE YALANG		K1,000.00	K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K36,000.00
42	MALUK MUGUR			K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K35,000.00
43	MARIA GAIAMA			K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K35,000.00
44	MARING NAIR			K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K35,000.00
45	MARTIN ALUNG			K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K35,000.00
46	MELCHIOR KASAP		K1,000.00	K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K36,000.00
47	MELCHIOR REBEN			K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K35,000.00
48	MICHAEL MUREI		K1,000.00	K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K36,000.00
49	MORRIS ALIM	K400.00.00	K1,000.00	K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K36,400.00
50	NORMAN ALONG		K1,000.00	K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K36,000.00
51	PAISI KOMANG	K100.00	K1,000.00	K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K36,100.00
52	PANAM BAUMUR		K1,000.00	K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K36,000.00
53	PETRONELLA MOSI	K65.00	K1,000.00	K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K36,065.00
54	ROSELYN JACOB		K1,000.00	K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K36,000.00
55	SABASTIAN ALONGO		K1,000.00	K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K36,000.00
56	STANLEY MAINDE		K1,000.00	K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K36,000.00
57	STELLA LANGAI			K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K36,000.00
58	SUBA ALONGO		K1,000.00	K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K36,000.00
59	SUGUMAN TULEM		K1,000.00	K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K36,000.00
60	TERENCE BESSEN			K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K35,000.00
61	THEDIUS KALIK		K1,000.00	K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K36,000.00
62	THEDIUS TULEM		K1,000.00	K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K36,000.00
63	THOMAS GAIAMA		K1,000.00	K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K36,000.00
64	VENANCIUS MARAO			K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K35,000.00
65	VERONICA WINKI			K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K35,000.00
66	YARING DUMO			K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K35,000.00
67	LINUS YAMAI			K5,000.00	K30,000.00	K35,000.00
TOTAL		K5,665.00	K30,000.00	K335,000.00	K2,010,000.00	K2,380,665.00

Table Three (3) – Total Damages Awarded to Each Plaintiff

20. This would mean that the State is liable to pay the Plaintiffs a total judgment sum of K2,380,665.00. The amount to be paid to each Plaintiff is stated in the last column of Table three (3) above.
    
21. I will award interest at 2% from the date liability was entered to the date of judgment pursuant to the Judicial Proceedings (Interests on Debts and Damages) Act 2015. I take this approach as the Plaintiffs must bear some responsibility for not actively prosecuting their case. Liability was determined on 15 August 2022.
    
22. Costs will be awarded in the fixed sum of K75,000.00 which caters for the Plaintiffs expenses incurred by Scholar Kasap of K50,000.00 for which I have referred to above. This is a long-standing matter, and the Plaintiffs are expected to have incurred costs. The fixed costs is awarded on the basis that taxation is not conducted regularly in Madang.
    

Orders

23. The final orders of the court are follows:
    
    1. The State pays the Plaintiffs a total judgment sum of K2,380,665.00, to be paid to each Plaintiff in accordance with the last column of Table Three (3) set out in the judgment.
       
    2. The State pays the Plaintiff interest on the judgment sum of K2,380,665.00 at 2% from 11 August 2022 to 6 December 2024.
       
    3. The State pays the Plaintiffs costs in the fixed sum of K75,000.00.
       
    4. The matter is considered determined, and the file is closed.
       
    5. Time is abridged.
       

Judgment and orders accordingly.

_______________________________________________________________
Public Solicitor: Lawyer for the Plaintiffs
Acting Solicitor General: Lawyer for the Defendants