DC3027
PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE 

SITTING IN ITS GRADE FIVE CIVIL COURT JURISDICTION]

GFCi: 39of 2016

BETWEEN

GARAPE LIVAI

Complainant

AND

BEN MORI

First Defendant

AND

YUMANE PAUL

Second Defendant

AND

SAMSON MORI

Third Defendant

Goroka:  R. APPA, PM

2016:   December 16
                                                                           2017:   January 6

CIVIL –

Cases Cited:
Nil
											-2-

References:
Nil

Counsels:
Nil

6thJanuary, 2017

REASONS FOR DECISION

R. APPA, PM:   This is a defamation case. The complainant alleged that on the 16th January 2016 the named defendants and their clan members entered the complainant’s premises at Mc Nicole Street in Goroka and accused her of sanguma and imparted it (demonie spirit) into the daughter of the first defendant and demanded her to remove her sanguma or evil spirit from the little girl without any evidence or proof and thus caused her shame, embarrassment and spoiled her reputation and standing in the community. She said this accusation was made in the presence of many people.

2.  The complainant further said that the defendants gave her K400.00 for the accusation which was insufficient.

3.   In defence, the first defendant spoke on behalf of the co-defendants and submitted that there was no proper cause of action and it was a cultural issue and should have been settled at the village level. It was further submitted that they had already apologized the complainant with K400.00 which she accepted it and that was the end of the matter.

4.  After considering the whole scenario of the case and evidence presented by both parties, I was satisfied that liability was established on the balance of probabilities.

5.  The accusation made against the complainant was sorcery related which attracted stricter application of law to discourage and prevent due to so many destruction and killings.

6.  There was no defence evidence provided to show the truth of such accusation so there was no justification or defence under the Defamation Act. I took it that the payment of K400.00 was an admission of liability and not in settlement.

7.  The next issue was on assessment of damage. How much compensation to award. It really depends on the extend of damage caused and suffered. Court is often guided by precedent cases.

8.  Lawyer for the complainant cited some precedent cases in which awards were made in defamation cases in her written submission. The awards made in those cases cited ranged between K4, 000.00 to K10, 000.00 depending on the mature of cases and extend of damages suffered.

9.  The complainant in the present case did not call any of those family members who were present and saw and heard what happened that time to come and give evidence on what and how they thought and 
											-3-

assessed of the accusation against her. That made it difficult for the court to know the extent of the damage. All we can say is that the accusation made was capable of bearing defamatory imputation on the complainant. 

10.  I adopt the award made by the National Court in the case of Tei Abel Vs Anton Parao (full citation yet to be made) and assessed damage at K1, 900.00 as close enough, K400.00 of which is deducted for money already paid and the balance of K1, 500.00 is yet to be settled.

Orders:	The defendants are jointly ordered to pay the complainant K1, 500.00 payable within 21 days from 6th January, 2017.

Counsels:
Nil