Bidas v Sam [2025] PGNC 292; N11436 (15 August 2025)

N11436

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

APPEAL CIA NO. 61 OF 2022

BETWEEN:
NGANINING BIDAS
First Appellant

AND:
MORRIS MOSIS & ISI KIWA
Second Appellant

AND:
JUNIOR SAM
Respondent

LAE: DINGAKE J
12, 15 AUGUST 2025

APPEAL – appeal of District Court decision made in favour of respondent- decision subject of appeal is on claim by respondent for payment of poles erected by PNG Data Company on land he purportedly owns – appellants appeal decision seeking orders for rehearing at the District Court by different Magistrate – grounds of appeal – consideration of – no factual or legal error by Magistrate – appeal dismissed

Counsel
Mr. Thomas Topo for the appellants
Mr. Tom Jack spokesperson for Junior Sam

JUDGMENT

1. DINGAKE J: INTRODUCTION: This is an appeal by the Appellants against the decision of the District Court, in which it ruled in favour of the Respondent, Junior Sam, with respect to a claim the Respondent lodged with the District Court, claiming payment for two poles (Poles 5 & 6) erected by PNG Data Company Limited, on the land the Respondent claimed belongs to his family and clan.
   
2. The land in question is described as Puaisia Uramrangan land at Sampubangin village.
   
3. The Appellants were aggrieved by the decision of the District Court and have now appealed to this Court, praying that the decision of the Court be quashed and the matter be remitted to Lae District Court for re-hearing by a new Magistrate.
   

Grounds of Appeal

The Appellants grounds of appeal are as follows:

1. The learned magistrate erred in law and facts when he did not give proper and due consideration to Appellant’s defence filed in the proceeding;
   
2. The learned magistrate erred in law and facts when he did not give proper and due consideration to Appellants’ defence that the appellants were charged by committal at Lae District Court and their matter was struck out for lack of evidence;
   
3. The learned magistrate erred in law and fact when he did not give proper and due consideration to evidence of the Appellants including letter from the Lae District Court Clerk of Court that the Appellant’s matters have been dealt with already;
   
4. The learned magistrate erred in law and facts when he did not give proper and due consideration to the fact that telecommunications poles 5 and 6 are in Wakiak land belonging to the Appellants but was misled to believe it was on the land belonging to the Respondent and his families.
   
5. There was an apprehension of bias as follows:
   
   1. His worship did not give the appropriate weight to the evidence of the Appellants
   2. His worship gave weight to other irrelevant considerations and did not give properly considered the defence of the Appellants.
      
4. In order to determine whether any of the grounds of appeal has merit, I turn to evaluate the key findings of the Magistrate after evaluating the evidence before the Court.
   
5. The District Court found that the Respondent is the representative of the Zumang Clan and that his family and clan own the Puaisia Uramrangan land at Sampubangin village, near Mutzing.
   
6. It would appear on the record/evidence before me that on or about the 21^st of February 2022, the defendants received some money from a telecommunications company, ostensibly PNG Data Company Limited totalling K70,000 for the poles it erected on the land that belongs to the Respondent, his family and clan.
   
7. Judgment of the District Court records that the Defendants were reported for obtaining payments over poles 5 and 6 by false pretence and were arrested and charged.
   
8. The District Court found that the reception of the payment, referred to above was fraudulent.
   
9. The District Court also found that the Respondent and his group have incorporated their land under the Land Groups Incorporated Act and have an incorporated land group (ILG) certificate since the 9^th of December 2010.
   
10. In summary, having considered all the evidence before the Court, the Court concluded that the Appellants had no justification for receiving payments for telecom poles no 5 & 6 in the land that belonged to the Respondent, his family and clan.
    
11. The Court held that the Respondent and his family are entitled to restitution or refund of the payments made to the Defendants.
    
12. In granting judgement in favour of the Respondent, the Court ordered that:
    
    1. The Complainant has sufficient and credible evidence to prove that he and family are entitled to the payments for telecom poles 5 and 6 at Sampubangin village.
       
    2. The defendants who benefitted from the payments are to repay 2/3 of the payment received for each telecom pole, that is pole 5 and 6.
       
    100. The Defendants to pay K7,000 and costs of K500 thus for a pole the Complainant will receive K7,500 each for each telecom pole totalling K15,000.
         
    4. The defendants to make the payments within 28 days of this order.
       
13. It is trite law that an appellate court would be slow to overturn the decision of the trial court unless there is an identifiable factual or legal error or some other good reason.
    
14. In this case I have not found any factual or legal error. I also did not find any evidence of bias that would justify the relief sought by the Appellants.
    
15. In the result, I find there is a no merit to this appeal.
    
16. The court orders that:
    
    1. The appeal is dismissed

________________________________________________________________
Lawyers for the appellants: Supasonix & Alu Lawyers