DC755

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE
SITTING IN ITS FAMILY JURISDICTION]

FC 06 of 2008

BETWEEN

PRISCILLA SEMOSO
Complainant

AND

NIGEL BILLY
Defendant

Buka: B Tasikul, SM

2008: April 10

CIVIL - Affiliation proceeding - Statutory requirement for corroboration in some material particulars.

Case Cited

Nil

Reference

Child Welfare Act, s. 55 (3)

Counsel

For the Complainant - In Person
For the Defendant - In Person

10 April 2008

REASON FOR DECISION

B Tasikul, SM : This is an affiliation proceeding brought by the complainant against the defendant. The complainant is alleging that the defendant is the father of her child born on the 13 December 2006. The only witness called by the complainant was a village elder who mediated the same trouble when it was first brought to the attention of the village chiefs. He stated that during the mediation the defendant accepted that he would marry the complainant. 

2. Nothing substantive was discussed about the child status. However it would have meant that he would marry the complainant and take the child as his. The defendant admitted having sexual intercourse with the complainant only once during and after a dance in the village. That was sometimes on Friday 3 March 2006. The complainant however, maintained that they had sexual intercourse sometimes in February 2006. Regardless of the actual date and month, both did have sexual intercourse. It was a one (1) night stand affair.

3. The complainant gave birth on the 13 December 2006, which is exactly nine (9) months from the date of their cohabiting. The defendant denies paternity basically because he claimed the complainant was also having an affair with another boy. These were just rumors or speculations. There was no evidence to proof his claim. 

4. Paternity proceedings are covered and regulated under the Child Welfare Act Ch. 276. Section 55 (3) of Act states that: "A court shall not make an order under subsection (1) (a) on the evidence of the mother unless her evidence is corroborated in some material particular; or (b) if the court is satisfied………….. (c) ……………………….."

5. This is a mandatory requirement under the Act. Claus (b) and (c) does not apply to this case as there was no evidence raised. Strictly speaking, section 55 (3) of the Act must be complied with. The complainant must call witnesses to support her claim of paternity. It is not enough to say that just because sexual intercourse was admitted between the parties would result in her pregnancy.

6. I am not disputing that one (1) act of sexual intercourse by a man would not impregnate a woman if the timing is right, but the law requires that there must be other evidence to support her claim.

7. The admission of the defendant in marrying her in the wan bel kot is not sufficient as I can not place too much weight on it. There must be some form of evidence such as medical records like birth records etc.

8. The circumstance in which she was made pregnant was a one (1) night stand. They had an affair after the dance. Did anybody see them going out or did the complainant mention their relationship to her friends or relative about the incident? 

9. These are some of the crucial evidence which can corroborate her evidence. As I have mentioned corroboration under the Child Welfare Act is a statutory requirement and that must be complied with.

10. I therefore find that the complainant has failed to prove her case on the balance of probabilities. I therefore dismiss this matter.

For the Complainant - In Person
For the Defendant - In Person