Goiye v Lawrance [2025] PGNC 17; N11140 (4 February 2025)

N11140

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

WS NO 612 OF 2015

BETWEEN
GABRIEL GOIYE on behalf of himself and a Hundred and Sixty-Seven other persons.
Plaintiff

AND
ORIM LAWRANCE, Minj Police Station Commander
First Defendant

AND
JOSEPH TONDOP, in his capacity as the Jiwaka Provincial Police Commander
Second Defendant

AND
MAZUK MAIP RUMBIAN, CID Officer In Charge, Western Highlands Provincial Police Commander
Third Defendant

AND
MARTIN LAKARI, in his capacity as the Western Highlands Provincial Police Commander
Fourth Defendant

AND
SAMSON BLACKLEY YAGLKAMA, Senior CID Officer - Kundiawa
Fifth Defendant

AND
MICHAEL WELLSH in his capacity as the Simbu Provincial Police Commander
Sixth Defendant

AND
GEOFFREY VAKI in his capacity as the Papua New Guinea Police Commissioner
Seventh Defendant

AND
THE INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA
Eighth Defendant

WAIGANI: MAKAIL, J
9 AUGUST 2021; 4 FEBRUARY 2025

ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES – Assessment of damages following entry of default judgment – Property loss from police raid – Award of damages – General damages – Special damages – Exemplary damages – Proof of – Evidence of – Corroboration of – Valuation report – Reliability of – Detailed and particularises property loss – Breach of constitutional rights – Act of war by members of police on ordinary civilians – Higher award of damages – Constitution – Sections 32, 36, 41, 42, 44, 49, 52, 55

Cases cited:
Abel Tomba v The State (1997) SC518
Albert Baine v The State (1995) N1335
Dukari v Kuglam (2006) N3087
Jonathan Mangope Paraia v The State (1995) N1343
Kolaip Palapi & Ors v Sergeant Poko and Others (2001) N2274
Kopung Brother Business Group v Sakawar Kasieng [1997] PNGLR 331
Kewa v Kai (2010) N3899
Kolokol v Amburuapi (2009) N3571
Lihir Mining Landowners Association v Banasi (2018) N7077
Lamon v Senior Constable Bumai (2010) N3920
Mond v Kalasim (2004) N2638
Peter Wanis v Fred Sikiot and The State (1995) N3150
Tingke v Gitua (2012) N4512
Tipaiza v Yali (2008) N3472
Yooken Paklin v The State (2001) N2212.
Yange Lagan & Ors v The State (1995) N1369

Counsel

Mr M Boas for the plaintiffs
Mr T Mileng for the defendants

JUDGMENT

1. MAKAIL J: This is a trial on assessment of damages. The plaintiffs claim damages for breach of constitutional rights or general damages, special damages, exemplary damages, interest and legal costs against the defendants.

Background Facts

2. On the 19^th the January 2014, a member of Waingar village by the name of Raphael Komainde was brutally assaulted by one Gibson Yuants, the owner of Molka Lodge in Minj, Jiwaka Province. Following the assault, Gibson Yuants was demanded to pay a compensation of K50,000.00 and 20 pigs.

3. At all material times, the assault and the demand for compensation were reported to the Kerowagi Police Station and Minj Police Station. Although the compensation demand was later reduced to K25,000.00 and10 pigs, Gibson Yuants failed to meet the demand.

4. On 25^th February 2014 Raphael Komainde passed away and the postmortem revealed that he died from injuries sustained from the assault.

5. On 4^th March 2014, whilst the relatives of late Raphael Komainde were mourning the death, police personnel stationed at Minj Police Station passed by Waingar village. The policemen were stopped by mourners, frustrated relatives, and members of the Waingar village and questioned as to why Gibson Yuants was not arrested. The police retaliated by firing warning shots which led to the police being attacked by the relatives and mourners. The leaders of Waingar village intervened and stopped the attack from escalating.

6. An hour after the attack, certain police personnel from Kerowagi and Kundiawa met with the relatives of late Raphael Komande and it was agreed that police would liaise with the Minj police for peace meeting between the relatives of the late Raphael Komainde and the Minj Police on the following day.

7. On 5^th March 2014, at about 10.25am, whilst everyone was seated and waiting for the peace meeting between the relatives of the deceased and Minj police to start, a number of police personnel from Western Highlands Province and Jiwaka Province arrived and disembarked from their vehicles. They were fully armed with guns, machetes and sticks. In their rage, the policemen started shooting, threatening, physically assaulted people, stopped cars at gunpoint, pointed guns at women and old people, destroyed food gardens, burned houses, killed pigs, looted stores and markets and arrested people randomly.

8. On 3^rd May 2017, default judgment was entered against the defendants with damages to be assessed after they failed to file their defence.

Law on Assessment of Damages

9. It is trite law that a trial on assessment of damages does not relieve a plaintiff from the burden of proving his losses on the balance of probabilities even if liability has been determined. In the case of Tipaiza v Yali (2008) N3472, the Court applied number of principles on assessment of damages to determine whether the plaintiffs had proven their claim. These principles may be summarised as follows:

1. The plaintiffs have the onus of proving their loses on the balance of probabilities. It is not sufficient to make assertions in a statement of claim and expect the Court to ward. The burden of proving a fact is upon the party alleging it. Not the party who denies it. In Yooken Paklin v The State (2001) N2212.
   
2. Corroboration of a claim is usually required, and the corroboration must come from an independent source in the case of Albert Baine v The State (1995) N1335 and Kopung Brother Business Group v Sakawar Kasieng [1997] PNGLR 331.
   
3. The principles of proof and corroboration apply even when the defendant fails to present any evidence disputing the claim in the Peter Wanis v Fred Sikiot and The State (1995) N3150.
   
4. 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 & Ors v The State (1995) N1369.
   
5. 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.
   
6. 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 & Ors v Sergeant Poko and Others (2001) N2274.
   

Special Damages

10. This part of the damages aims to compensate the plaintiffs for the loss and destruction of properties. In assessing general damages for loss and destruction of properties it is relevant to take in to account the types of properties destroyed fall within four categories. These categories are permanent or semi-permanent houses, bush materials houses, household contents, cash crops and food garden. Damages will be awarded based on four categories which are set out as follows:

Permanent or semi-permanent house

1. For this particular property they referred to the case of Dukari v Kuglam (2006) N3087. In this case the PNG Defence Force detachment destroyed the plaintiff’s two houses during a shootout between the Defence Force and the BRA whilst the Defence Force was carrying out security operations. In that case the Court awarded general damages in the amount of K50,000.00 for the loss of two houses.
   
2. In the present case there were number of permanent or semi-permanent houses destroyed. In applying the case of Dukari v Kuglam (supra), the plaintiffs submitted that each of the permanent or semi-permanent houses destroyed should be awarded K50,000.00 in general damages. Furthermore, it is submitted that this award is fair and reasonable.
   

Bush material house

3. For this particular property they referred to the case of Tingke v Gitua (2012) N4512. In that case an unlawful police raid was carried out in the plaintiffs’ village in which the plaintiffs’ properties were destroyed. The Court considered the damages for bush material houses between K500.00 to K3,000.00. Adopting the Court’s award in that case, the plaintiffs submitted that general damages in the amount of K700.00 should be awarded for each of the bush materials houses destroyed.
   

Household Items

4. For household items the plaintiffs referred to the case of Kewa v Kai (2010) N3899, where the plaintiff claimed damages against the defendants for tortuous actions. Amongst other damages claimed the plaintiff claimed general damages for personal items. The Court considered and assessed damages for destruction of personal items at K22,398.81. The Court held that the amount was reasonable by comparing them with the average purchase price of the same items at shops around town and the awards in past cases. Adopting the Court’s approach in Kewa v Kami (supra) the plaintiffs submitted that the award for the general damages for household items should be the average purchase price of items at shops at present and the awards in past cases.
   

Cash Crops & Garden Food

5. For cash crops and garden food, the plaintiffs submitted the awards from the compensation schedule for trees and plants in all regions booklet compiled by the office of the Valuer-General of August 2013 of each of the garden crops or garden food that were destroyed be adopted.
   

General Damages/Breach of Constitutional Rights

11. The plaintiffs claim several breaches of their constitutional rights:

• Section 32 of the Constitution, right to freedom,
• Section 36 of the Constitution, freedom from inhuman treatment,
• Section 41 of the Constitution, proscribed acts,
• Section 42 of the Constitution, liberty of the person,
• Section 44 of the Constitution, freedom from arbitrary search and entry,
• Section 49 of the Constitution, rights to privacy.
• Section 52 of the Constitution, -rights to freedom of movement,
• Section 53 of the Constitution, protection from unjust deprivation of property, and
• Section 55 of the Constitution, equality of citizens.

12. For general damages for breach of constitutional rights the plaintiffs relied on the cases of Lihir Mining Landowners Association v Banasi (2018) N7077, Lamon v Senior Constable Bumai (2010) N3920 and Kolokol v Amburuapi (2009) N3571.

13. In the Lihir Mining Landowners Association v Banasi case (supra), the plaintiffs instituted proceedings against the State arising from an eviction exercise involving a police raid of the land on which they were living resulting in the destruction of their homes, gardens, other properties, assault, arrest, and detention in custody of some plaintiffs. Default judgement was entered against the State and the matter went to trial on assessment of damages. The Court awarded a global sum of K5,000.00 as general damages and K3,000.00 as exemplary damages.

14. In the case of Lamon v Senior Constable Bumani (supra), a trial on assessment of damages was conducted for breach of human rights after liability was determined. According to the facts the Plaintiffs were arrested and detained on suspicion of their involvement in a murder. Whilst being detained the plaintiffs were tortured and subjected to other inhuman treatment which was extensive. The Court held that it was appropriate to award a global sum of damages, covering compensation and general damages, for each plaintiff, and referred to it as “reasonable damages” under Section 58 (2) of the Constitution. The Court also awarded exemplary damages and 8% interest under the Judicial Proceedings (Interest on Debts and Damages) Act Chapter No. 52. The total judgement awarded in that case was K809,600.00.

15. In the case of Kolokol v Amburuapi (supra), the plaintiff was assaulted and shot by police on suspicion of being involved in an armed robbery. The plaintiff was also detained for three days. The plaintiff claimed for general damages, compensation for breach of human rights, special damages, and exemplary damages. The Court considered and held that compensation for breaches of human rights were to be assessed independently from general damages. The Court awarded general damages in the sum of K25,000.00. Further, the Court held that the plaintiff’s human rights were breached on four distinct occasions in which three of his constitutional rights were breach on four distinct occasions in which three of his constitutional rights were breached. For each of the constitutional breaches the Court awarded K5,000.00 totalling K20,000.00. Due to the breach of constitutional rights being so severe or continuous the Court also awarded exemplary damages of K10,000.00. The total judgment inclusive of interest awarded was K71,986.00.

Exemplary Damages

16. The plaintiffs claimed exemplary damages. They also acknowledged that it is a discretionary matter for the Court to award exemplary damages pursuant to Section 12 (1) of the Claims By and Against the State Act 1996, which reads. “(1) No exemplary damages may be awarded against the State unless it appears to the Court that, regardless of the nature of the claim, there has been a breach of Constitutional rights so severe or continuous as to warrant an award of exemplary damages”. For this reason, they submitted that this is an appropriate case for an award of exemplary damages. In Mond v Kalasim (2004) N2638 Manuhu AJ (as he then was) stated:

“At common law, the object of the award of exemplary damages is to punish, to deter or to demonstrate to the defendant the community’s or the Courts stern disapproval of the conduct in question.”

17. Furthermore, the plaintiffs submitted that the police raid cases are becoming institutionalised, and operations have become a growing culture amongst the law enforcement agencies, particularly the police force and this is one of the many cases of police raid where an award of exemplary damages is appropriate to penalise, deter, warn or show disapproval towards such police force conduct in a democratic society where citizens constitutional rights are being violated.

Defendants’ Submissions

18. Before I analyse the evidence of the plaintiffs, I wish to address the defendants’ submissions in opposing the damages sought by the plaintiffs. First, the defendants submitted that the relief sought by the plaintiffs are unsupported by pleadings in the statement of claim especially that it is not expressed that the tortuous conduct were committed by members of the Police during the course or within the scope of their employment. Having read the statement of claim, I am not satisfied that this is a case where there are no expressed allegations to connect the members of the Police to the tortuous conduct under Section 1 of the Wrongs (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Ch 297. On the other hand, there are sufficient allegations of fact pleaded at paragraphs 2 to 9 of the statement of claim to put the defendants on notice of the connection (nexus) between the tortfeasors and the tortuous conduct that the defendants are looking for.

19. Moreover, the pleadings adequately cover the background allegations of fact and allegations of tortuous conduct by members of the police, type of tortuous conduct each of the plaintiffs were allegedly subjected to, that the tortuous acts were committed by members of the Police during the course or within the scope of their employment and the relief sought. It is also equally important to observe that while the power of the Court to strike out proceedings for want of pleadings is discretionary, the defendants’ decision to contest the adequacy of the pleadings should not be a matter of preference and made after entry of default judgment. Such practice exposures the defendants to the strong criticism of abuse of the Court process and counterproductive to a fair trial of the substantive issues. The defendants’ belated contest to the adequacy of the pleadings is one such case and renders their contest without merit, an abuse of process and is dismissed.

20. Secondly, the defendants submitted that the plaintiffs did not produce medical reports to verify that that the plaintiffs suffered residual injuries from the assault by members of the Police. While it is correct that the plaintiffs did not produce medical reports in relation to any residual injuries, there is uncontested evidence from the plaintiffs that they were assaulted by the members of the Police and some of them such as Komba Witne have produced medical reports to verify their injuries. In the circumstances, this is a case of relevance of the extent of the plaintiffs’ injuries rather than proof of the injuries. As to the sum to be awarded for general damages, I note the defendants’ submission for a global sum of K20,000.00 for all plaintiffs.

21. Thirdly, I note the defendants’ submissions for a global sum of K20,000.00 for general damages to compensate the plaintiffs for unlawful detention (false imprisonment) and that no exemplary damages should be awarded against the eighth defendant (The State) but the first, and third defendants including identified members of the Police. Finally, I note the defendants’ submissions that the Valuation Report attached to the affidavit of Peter Kuman sworn on 27^th October 2020 and filed on 28^th October 2020 be rejected because it is hearsay and that it is unreliable because it was not contemporaneous to the raid. I will address the reliability of the Valuation Report when I analyse the evidence of the plaintiffs.

Analysis of Evidence

22. The plaintiffs relied on 140 affidavits tendered at trial. They have been identified as exhibits. Each plaintiff’s losses will be assessed as follows:

1. All 139 plaintiffs’ claim general damages for assault (gun butted, struck with blunt side of bush knives and wheel spanner, struck on the foot with bush knives, stoned, burnt with cigarette butt, struck with sharp pointed timber on the ribs, kicked and punched on their faces), threatened, intimidated, unlawfully detained, pain, and suffering.
   
2. 56 out of the 139 plaintiffs claim special damages for loss and destruction of their properties. The type of properties destroyed fall into four (4) categories – permanent or semi-permanent houses, bush material houses, household items, cash crops and garden food.
   

100. All 139 plaintiffs claim exemplary damages for severe violation of their Constitutional rights by members of the police force during the raid.

4. The Landmark Valuers & Consultants were engaged to independently inspect and provide a Valuation Report. The valuation report was provided on 26^th April 2020 to the plaintiffs’ lawyers. Landmark Valuers & Consultant assessed special damages at K1,082,742.60. The Landmark Valuers & Consultants is annexed to the affidavit of Peter Kuman sworn 17^th October 2020 and filed 28^th October 2020.
   
5. The valuation report provides pictures and details of loss and destruction of property.
   
6. Finally, it should be noted that while the Writ of Summons filed on 11^th May 2015 refers to 168 plaintiffs, 29 plaintiffs out of the initial 168 plaintiffs did not file their affidavits hence the plaintiffs rely only on 139 affidavits.
   

23. I have read the affidavits of the plaintiffs and guided by the submissions of the plaintiffs and defendants on the principles of assessment of damages, I am satisfied that there is substantial corroborative evidence from the plaintiffs’ affidavits supporting their claims and award of damages will be made accordingly. The contents of the affidavits are corroborative, consistent, and credible. As for those plaintiffs who have not filed affidavits, I find that there is no evidence to prove their injuries, and losses and no award of damages will be made for them. These plaintiffs are listed from no 140 to no 155 in the Table found in the written submissions of the plaintiffs’ counsel. In addition, while the independent assessment by Landmark Valuers & Consultants (Valuation Report) was not contemporaneous to the raid, it is comprehensive in relation to the particulars of the losses and destruction of plaintiffs’ properties. I am further satisfied that the plaintiffs’ claims are genuine, not bogus or fraudulent. For these reasons, I am further satisfied that the plaintiffs have discharged the onus of proof of their losses on the balance of probabilities.

Assessment of Damages

24. Special damages were assessed at K1,082,742.60 to compensate for loss and destruction of the plaintiffs’ properties. A 30% discount from the total assessed amount is applied to compensate for instances of exaggeration and depreciation. This gives K757,919.12 as the total amount for special damages claimed by 56 plaintiffs out of 155 plaintiffs. For 56 plaintiffs, each is awarded a sum of K13,534.27.
Constitutional Breach/General Damages.

25. That according to the circumstances of this case and considering the evidence I note that the police actions were quite extensive and excessive. The plaintiffs were subjected to such unruly police conduct and behaviour. Even when the plaintiffs were assaulted and chased from their homes, the members of the police still restricted the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights by maintaining the fear and intimidation up until the time they left. This placed many hardships and struggles on the plaintiffs as provided in their evidence. Therefore, the plaintiffs will be compensated for each breached constitutional rights.

26. In support of this contention, the plaintiffs relied on the case of Lihir Mining Area Landowners Association v Basani (supra), Lamon v Senior Constable Bumai (supra) and Kolokol v Amburuapi (supra). Considering the three cases the plaintiffs submitted that the breach of their constitutional rights should be awarded at K5,000.00 for each breach. However, I have decided to award a global sum of K10,000.00 for each plaintiff to cover for all the nine different breaches of constitutional rights identified by the plaintiffs at [11] supra.

Exemplary Damages

27. I distinguish the facts in Abel Tomba v The State (1997) SC518 from this case and find that the conduct of the police in carrying out the raid amounted to serious breaches of constitutional rights. It was an act of war by members of the Police on ordinary civilians and must be condemned in the strongest possible terms. As such the circumstances surrounding this case warrant a payment of exemplary damages. Thus, the State bears the responsibility of paying exemplary damages. For the foregoing reasons, I award exemplary damages at K10,000.00 for each plaintiff.

28. Total damages are awarded in the sum of K3,557,919.12 and paid to each plaintiff as tabulated hereunder:

No.	Plaintiffs	Special Damages	Constitutional Breach/ General Damages	Exemplary Damages	Total Damages
1.	Gabriel Goiye	-	10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
2.	Klen Mogli	-	10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
3.	Agatha Apa	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	33,534.27
4.	Klen Dorme	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	33,534.27
5.	Arre Kuman	-	10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
6.	Gambugl Kowane	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	33,534.27
7.	Gumakande Arnold		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
8.	Joe Komainde	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	33,534.27
9.	Joe Mack	-	10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
10.	Joe Tine	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	28,534.27
11.	Jim Bongere	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	33,534.27
12.	Jim Gogla	-	10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
13.	Joe Waiange	-	10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
14.	James Guand	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	33,534.27
15.	Joe Kekene	-	10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
16.	Gendua Joe	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	33,534.27
17.	Gabriella David	-	10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
18.	Gabriella Kindua	13.534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	33,534.27
19.	Guarka Wilfred	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	33,534.27
20.	Gabriel Konde	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	33,534.27
21.	Gomago Leo	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	33,534.27
22.	Gabriella Duma	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	33,534.27
23.	Goma Steven	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	33,534.27
24.	Gend George		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
25.	Harry Tine	-	10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
26.	Dungul Dux Peter	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	33,534.27
27.	Doili Christine	-	10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
28.	En Uglo		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
29.	Eli Dorme	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	33,534.27
30.	Eli Nime	-	10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
31	EIi Andamgo	-	10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
32.	Francis Paul	-	10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
33.	Fabian Waim	-	10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
34.	Gambugl Bundo	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	33,534.27
35.	Gaglma Paul	-	10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
36.	Greta Denge	-	10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
37.	Dilu Bob	-	10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
38.	Dorme Markus	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	33,534.27
39.	Denge Bongoro	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	33,534.27
40.	Jacklyn George		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
41.	Jacklyn Kala	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	33,534.27
42.	Linwainde Wela	-	10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
43.	Leo Bomai	-	10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
44.	Peter Dii	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	33,534.27
45.	Wiri Philip	-	10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
46.	Willliam Bige	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	33,534.27
47.	Wii Mondo	-	10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
48.	Wii Kamb	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	33,534.27
49.	Waglma Beta	-	10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
50.	Walg Anton	135,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	33,534.27
51.	Vero Baa	-	10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
52.	Uglo James		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
53	Tony Goiye	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	33,534.27
54	Theresa Pake	-	10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
55.	Teine Porgo		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
56.	Tei Bungo	-	10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
57.	Taiya John	-	10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
58.	Sopina Oro	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	20,534.27
59.	Simon Kangi	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	20,534.27
60.	Ruth Siwi		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
61.	Rose Urambo		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
62.	Rose Uglo	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	33,534.27
63.	Rose Arre		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
64.	Peter Kumo		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
65.	Peter Konduage	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	33,534.27
66.	Peter Kamane		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
67.	Peter Iso Wawe		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
68.	Peter Denge		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
69.	Peter Dalbi		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
70.	Per Peter		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
71.	Paul Kuma	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	33,534.27
72	Paul Konia		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
73	Paul Komande		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
74.	Paul Daka Grai		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
75.	Palus Aglua		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
76.	Onguglo Philip	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	33,534.27
77.	Nanme John Jnr	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	33,534.27
78.	Nancy Uglo		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
79	Muglua Paul		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
80.	Monica Uglo		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
81.	Michael Winnie	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	33,534.27
82.	Michael Kekre		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
83.	Marthella Kekre		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
84.	Mary Kini		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
85.	Mariana Geregiamb		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
86.	Maria Thomas	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	33,534.27
87.	Maria Paul		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
88.	Maria Mack	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	33,534.27
89	Maria Guma		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
90	Margareth Wagl		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
91.	Mama Koim	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	33,534.27
92.	Marina Hetman		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
93	Lucas Gene Guma		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
94.	Lia Paul Konia	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	33,534.27
95.	Leo Wagai	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	33,534.27
96.	Lapun Tom		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
97.	Gabriel Goiye		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
98.	Yer John		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
99.	Witne Gabriel		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
100	Wemin Timothy		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
101	Wagl Jacob	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
102	Taiya Samuel	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	33,534.27
103	Kwigl Siwi		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
104	Kutna Taiya	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	33,534.27
105	Kuman Anton	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	33,534.27
106	Kui Joseph		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
107	Krond Peter Premier		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
108	Kowane Brown		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
109	Konda Dai	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	33,534.27
110	Komba Witne		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
111	Koikia Danie	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	33,534.27
112	Kindagl Kops		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
113	Kilo Michael	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	33,534.27
114	Kawage Markus	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	33,534.27
115	Kawagle Guma		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
116	Kamb Joseph Tom		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
117	Kakin Bruno		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
118	Kag Wamuna		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
119	Clement Owie		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
120	Clara Wamugl		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
121	Charles Witne		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
122	Bonny Guma		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
123	Bolan Mitna	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	33,534.27
124	Boi Grai	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	33,534.27
125	Binge Kuman	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	33,534.27
126	Ben Philip		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
127	Balpina Sebastian		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
128	Apa Tuna	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	33,534.27
129	Apa Gaglma	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	33,534.27
130	Apa Andrew	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	33,534.27
131	Anton Mongli	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	33,534.27
132	Anton Kowane	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	33,534.27
133	Anton Kini	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	33,534.27
134	Anna Kina		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
135	Anna Andrew		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
136	Andrew Nokul		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
137	Ande Tom		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
138	Alois Mengage	13,534.27	10,000.00	10,000.00	33,534.27
139	Agnes Telke		10,000.00	10,000.00	20,000.00
Total		757,919.12	1,390,000.00	1,390,000.00	3,537,919.12

Interest

29. Finally, the plaintiffs seek an award of interest from the date of issue of writ of summons to the date of judgment pursuant to the Judicial Proceedings Interest on Debts and Damages) Act, 2015.

30. In a case where the State is a party and vicariously liable such as in the present case, the applicable pre-judgment and post-judgment interest rate is 2% based on Section 4(1) and Section 6(1) of the Judicial Proceedings (Interest on Debts and Damages) Act, 2015. Accordingly, interest is awarded at the rate of 2% on the total judgment sum of K3,537,919.12 from the date of issue of writ to summons to date of judgment and until final settlement.

Costs

31. Finally, the defendants shall pay the plaintiffs’ costs of the proceedings, to be taxed, if not agreed.

Order

32. The final terms of the order of the Court are:

1. Judgment is entered in favour of the plaintiffs in the total sum of K3,537,919.12.
   
2. Interest at the rate of 2% is awarded on the total judgment sum of K3,537,919.12 from the date of issue of writ of summons to date of final settlement pursuant to Section 4(1) and Section 6(1) of the Judicial Proceedings (Interest on Debts and Damages) Act, 2015.
   
3. The defendants shall pay the plaintiffs’ costs of the proceeding, to be taxed, if not agreed.

_________________________________________________________________________
Lawyers for plaintiffs: Kuman Lawyers
Lawyer for defendants: Acting Solicitor General