DC7063

PAPUA NEW GUINEA.
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE
SITTING IN ITS CIVIL JURISDICTION]
DCC NO: 37 /2021.

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

RICHARD GABUGA.
Complainant.
.
AND.
1.	CLIFFORD LOT
2.	DOREEN LOT.
Defendants.

Popondetta:	Michael W. Apie’e 

2021: OCTOBER 09th.

CIVIL PROCEEDINGS. Claim for Restraining Orders.

Cases Cited: 

References:
District Court Act.

Representation:
Complainant in person.
Defendants each in person.

JUDGMENT ON TRIAL.
Background.

1.	This Matter came before this court as an affidavit Trial on the 19/08/21 and the Parties made their various submissions on their various Affidavits filed previously in Court.

2.	The Parties are related in that The Complainant is the father of the second Defendant and he brought action against the Defendants on the basis that they had made certain allusions to him being a Sorcery Practitioner responsible for certain afflictions caused to the First Defendant.

a.	The Complainant primarily sought orders of restraint against the Defendants in his claim, That the Defendant be restrained from;

i.	The Defendants and their Agents and Associates be restrained from Issuing threats against the Complainant.

ii.	The Defendants and their Agents and Associates be restrained from coming close to the Complainant

iii.	The Defendants and their Agents and Associates be restrained from making further statements/allegations of Sorcery against the Complainant

Affidavits and Submissions:

Complainants case.
3.	In his affidavit of 19th may 2021 and again in his supplementary affidavit of 12th September 2020 obviously filed previously probably in anticipation of this suit, he stated the following that;

a.	The defendant had publicly announced at Saroda Hamlet in Oro Bay that the Complainant was responsible for the first Defendants Illnesses through Sorcery Related Activities.

b.	The first Defendant had texted him when the complainant was in Port Moresby and warned him that ‘My First Defendants) life and my wife and family was important and you (Complainant) are not allowed to come to my premises, as I will have nothing to do with you!’ 

c.	That sometime later the First Defendant destroyed the Complainants wooden dugout canoe with an axe.

d.	Further that the Grand Daughter Beanca Lot passed a message directly to the Complainant that some men called the Dangoro Brothers were planning to cut the Complainant to pieces.

e.	That he is now living with a high degree of fear that such an attack might happen to him anytime soon.

f.	Therefore, the complainant seeks that orders noted above.

4.	In his submissions, the Complainant more or less reiterated the matters raised above.
	
Defendants case.
5.	The Defendants on the other hand relied on the First Defendants Affidavit of 28th May 2021 in which he raised the following that;

a.	The Defendants never suspected the Complainant of Sorcery but rather were told by Three different ‘Witch-Doctors one of whom was from Bokoro village and a close brother/friend of the Complainant, of whom the Complainant had boasted was a son of a powerful man.

b.	The Complainant ought to have summoned these Three Witch-Doctors to verify their statements of him being a Sorcerer.

c.	The Defendant(s) denies issuing threats to the Complainant and further denied the complainants claims of them having agents and associates threatening or intending ill against the Complainant evidence by the fact that he is still travelling freely from the village to Popondetta town and back several times a month since their falling out with him in November of 2019 or thereabouts.

d.	The Defendant denied dealing with the Complainants derelict canoe in anyway except to tell his caretaker to remove it from his yard, and whatever happen to it is unknown to the Defendant.

e.	The Defendant said that once he was informed by the Three Witch Doctors of the Complainants part in his illness, he texted him in Port Moresby not to come to his home as related by the Complainant himself.

f.	He further stated in his affidavit about other things the Complainant does that are not appropriate like planning evil against his own children when they do not meet his demands, his demands for the second Defendants bride price fromhe first defendant and him asking for repayment of certain favours done to the Defendant by other members of the family, and also he is always disrespectful to his own wife and the Second Defendants old mother by calling her as ‘a prostitute’ many times in front of her children.

g.	The Defendants more or less relayed the same sentiments as above during their submissions and such are noted.

Observations:
6.	Having heard the submissions in this matter, I make the following observations and assessments;

i.	The Parties are all typical Melanesian Papua New Guineans from the Oro Bay LLG of the Northern Province and it is apparent they all harbor certain feelings and beliefs in the Practice and evil reputation of Witch-Craft or Sorcery.

ii.	This inherent belief is borne out by the fact that the First Defendant fell sick and he resorted to being treated by Witch –Doctors rather than the formal Medical system and some or one of these Witch-Doctors was recommended by the Complainant.

iii.	These Witch-Doctors then turned around and accused the Complainant as being one of the persons or the person involved in the afflicting of the First Defendant with illness, hence the First Defendants texts to the Complainant whilst he was in Port Moresby.

iv.	The Complainants Fear of being attacked and or targeted for attack because of the label of being a Practitioner of Sorcery is indeed a valid concern noted by this court as in this country, many man and woman have lost their lives just on the mere rumors of being a sorcerer or sorceress especially ‘Sanguma or Posin-man. ‘

v.	This Court also further notes that due to the lack of proper enlightenment through either education, religious convictions or self-development, many Papua New Guineans still harbor strong feelings of suspicion and fear over the concepts of Sorcery and Witch-craft and given an occurrence of an untimely death of a person within a given community, grief can quickly turn to vengeance and people with such reputations as Sorcerers or Witch-craft practitioners might be sooner rounded up and dealt with, often-times brutally and fatally. In other parts of  the Country this is called ‘Sanguma Operation’.

vi.	I know this for a fact and if the First Defendant lives and works in Porgera in the Enga Province as I had lived and worked in Porgera from 2014 to 2019, I am sure he has probably heard of this.

vii.	The Defendants lay the blame of the Defendant being labelled as a Sorcerer at the feet of the Three Witch-Doctors that treated the First Defendant and one or more of these persons are associated to the Complainant and were indeed referred to the First Defendant by the Complainant.
viii.	The Complainants concern is primarily about the likely fall-out from persons other than the defendants capitalizing on this labelling of him as a Sorcery Practitioner to harm or even kill him should this rumours continue and the Defendants are not restrained.

7.	In the final Analysis, the Court finds and Rules as follows that;

i.	The Defendants do not deny accusing the Complainant of practicing Sorcery but blame 3 witch doctors of accusing the Defendant of being a Sorcerer.

ii.	The Defendant has probably contributed to this by associating with or conducting himself in a manner that is likely to lead people into thinking he was such a person.
iii.	The Court thinks that all parties must be therefore restrained from breathing down getting on each other’s nerves.

8.	Accordingly, the Court will order as follows;

i.	The Defendants and their Associates and Agents are hereby Restrained from openly labelling the Complainant as a Sorcerer, or Witch Doctor from hereon.

ii.	The Defendants and their Associates and Agents are hereby Restrained from threatening, harassing and insulting the Complainant from hereon.

iii.	The Complainant is also hereby Restrained from interfering in, communicating and or Bothering the Defendants in their day to day lives from hereon unless invited back by the Defendants themselves.

iv.	Parties to bear own costs.
	
Complainant in person.
Defendants each in person.