Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Papua New Guinea District Court

Megaraka v Duma [2020] PGDC 15; DC4071 (16 November 2020)

DC

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE

SITTING IN IT’S LOCAL LAND COURT JURISDICTION]

LLC 24 of 2019
BETWEEN

SOLOMON MEGARAKA, JOE IRANA AND OTHERS OF THE TUTUBU VILLAGE, DOMARA VILLAGE AND MERANI VILLAGE
Applicants

AND

LAUSI DUMA, ALPHONSE SUMANU, MILAN KOVE, ISOA SIU, THOMAS KOVE KAMUNA AND DOMARA FOUR CLANS
Respondents

Moreguina: L Wawun-Kuvi

2020: 28 July, 16 November 2020
      

LOCAL LAND COURT- Jurisdiction- Power of the Local Land Court to hear a matter referred by the National Land Commission where there has already been an award?

Cases Cited
Gabi V Nate [2006] PGNC 178; N4020 (30 November 2006)

Legislation
Land Dispute Settlement Act
National Land Registration Act
Land Titles Commission Act

16 November 2020

L Wawun Kuvi, Local Land Court Magistrate:

1. Land is more than a place. For our people in the village who live in harmony with the land and who toil the land for survival, it is so much more. It is more than a rock, a tree, a mountain, a river, or a sea. It is our ancestor, it is our future, it is our identity, our family and our culture. It is who we are. The spirits of our ancestors become it, are it and guard it. Blood continues to be shed as we sit here today applying colonist laws of land ownership. Without land we dissipate to nothing; with land but seeing it as nothing more than a money making opportunity, we become nothing more than a pack of stray mongrels shedding blood over a bone.
2. For people who have no cultural ties to land it is nothing more than commodity which is bought and sold. An asset to make profit from, a way to make a living off or simply a home. They have no relationship to it. This is what land acquisition has done to the indigenous people of the land.
3. History says that the peoples of the land in which Moreguina Township is built were mighty warriors, head hunters. They were a proud people whose warriors proved themselves worthy to a bride by cutting of the finger of their first kill and presenting it to their beloved.
4. Gone are those days for the children of Moreguina are now left squabbling of monetary settlement whilst their land is no longer their land.
5. This is the case today. This is the case in which everyone has come to hear whether they are in the right place or they should go elsewhere in search of fortunes hoped.
6. That is what this case is really about.
7. There is no dispute that the Land is alienated land having been acquired by the Crown on 28 January 1908.
8. The conflict between the parties arose because of settlement payments offered by the State through the machinery of the National Lands Commission.

History

9. One would not fully graph the present matter without first reviewing how it meandered its way to the Local Land Court. Meander is the only description I can find that amply describes how a clearly defined process formed tributaries and sent parties into a sink hole.
10. The Land in dispute is the Moreguina Government Station and Community Centre, located in Abau District, Central Province.
11. The National Court case of Gabi V Nate [2006] PGNC 178; N4020 (30 November 2006) provides a road map of events prior to the matter being remitted to the Local Land Court.
12. The case involved the challenge by the State on excess compensation payments made by the then Chief Commissioner to customary landowners of now alienated land.
13. The case of Manobo Community School and Moreguina Government Station was one of the cases that the State alleged that the award was in excess. The case is referred to in the judgement by Injia J as case 22, the file reference being OS 668 of 2004 - The State –v- Milan Kove & Ors.
14. Justice Injia joined all the cases together in Gabi v Nate stating that the issues were the same. For those that had some separate issues he addressed them separately in his judgement.
15. The decision in Gabi v Nate is very clear. His Honour at paragraph 60-66 discussed the issue of duplication of awards and re judicata. He stated that the NLC lacked power or jurisdiction under the Act to review or revisit its earlier award. His Honour stated at paragraph 62:

“62. In my view, NLC is not given any power under the Act to revisit its earlier award. Once an award is made, it is final unless set aside by a Court of competent jurisdiction either on appeal under s.46 or upon a successful application for judicial review in the National Court.”[Emphasis mine]

16. His Honour found that (1) the principle of res judicata applied to NLC decisions and (2) that the awards replacing awards over the same land was res judicata and should not have been made.
17. He gave the benefit to the initial awardees and found that the conflicting issues of customary land ownership were adequately addressed by the NLC.
18. He then addressed individual issues peculiar to each case.
19. His Honour at paragraph 124 to 128 address issues peculiar to case 22 or OS 668 of 2004 -

    ---

    PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
    URL: http://www.paclii.org/pg/cases/PGDC/2020/15.html