DC3074
PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE DISTRICT COURT JUSTICE

SITTING IN ITS CIVIL JURISDICTION]

DCCi  185 Of 2017

BETWEEN

NOSI MOTORS LIMITED

Applicant

AND

ANDREW KORAROME

First Respondent
							
						AND

NCR TECHNOLOGY & 1OR

Second Respondent

Goroka:  Ms. L. Sani, Magistrate

2017: November 28

CIVIL:

Cases Cited:
Nil

References:
Nil

Counsels:

Lawyer for the Complainant, In Person

Lawyer for the Defendant, In Person
-2-

28th November, 2017

COURT DELIBERATION &PRELIMINARY RULING

L SANI, Magistrate:Thisis an Application for Eviction under Section 6 of the Summary Ejectment Act, Ch. No. 202.
PRELIMINARY ISSUES:
2.   Whether or not the complainant/Secretary has the legal standing to Represent and Act for by and against the Company Name for the Director?  A: Yes.  Nosi Motors Limited is a fully Registered Business.  The Director is the then deceased father of the applicant namely Vincent Hatefa whom is named as the Secretary under the business name.  She has substantial interest as to the business as the only surviving children and daughter of the deceased Director.
3.  Whether or not the title to the said property is in dispute? Ans: Yes.  Due to irregularities in the process of issuance of title.  It is not clear as to who should be the true title holder of the said property.  Law:  Section 162 of the LRA, Ch. No. 191 – states the where an instrument of the title has been lost, destroyed or defaced the registered title holder or proprietor may apply to the Registrar for a replacement.  The term replacement does not mean transfer.  The fact that Janet Hatefa applied to the Registrar of titles in September, 2016 was the reason of her father’s title being lost as stated in the current title is cancelled.  If the application was intended to cancel George IPI’s title then the title should have been correctly re-issued under her name.  Because of the reason of Director/Father’s death.  The cancelation of George IPI’s title and restoring the title back to Nosi Motors Ltd although the Director is dead is improper in breach of section 13 of the LRA.  In other words where a transfer is made a new title must be issued or a replacement be made according to the merits or circumstances of each case.  I doubt the title because; the title after cancellation must be transferred to back to the complainant/applicant.  In this instance the title is unclear to warrant an eviction.
4.  Whether or not the applicant has sufficient interest?  Yes
5.  Whether or not complainant is entitled for the relief sought?  Ans: I think I have answered that in part at the top.
COURT ORDERS:
1.	The application sought here is refused.  
2.	All of the proceeding is summarily dismissed.  
3.	 Parties bear their own costs.

-3-
Counsels:

Lawyer for the Complainant, In Person

Lawyer for the Defendant, In Person