Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback National Court of Papua New Guinea

Eastern Highlands Savings & Loan Society Ltd v Secretary, Department of Lands [1999] PGNC 32; N1901 (7 May 1999)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1901

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

WS NO. 639 OF 1998
BETWEEN: EASTERN HIGHLANDS SAVINGS & LOAN SOCIETY LIMITED
PLAINTIFF
AND: SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LANDS
DEFENDANT

Goroka

Kirriwom J
23 April 1999
7 May 1999

Counsel

Mr D. Umba for the Plaintiff

No appearance from the Defendant

7 May 1999

KIRRIWOM J: This is an applicatiothe Pthe Plaintiff/Applicant for the Defendant/Respondent to be committed to prison for contempt of Court. The applicant claims the rthe respondent is in contempt of this honourable courause it disobeyed an order rder of this court made on 9th December 1998. That order commanded the Secretary for Lands Departmen or his staff to produce toce to the plaintiff and or its lawyers within 14 days the office file on section 83 allotment 4 Goroka tog with all the documents pertaining to the forfeiture of thef the State Lease on the said property. The plaintiff/applicant is the lessee of a property in the township of Goroka described as allotment 4 section 83, Elizabeth Street more particularly ibed Staa State Business Lease Volume 66 Folio 108 which is leased to the Eastern Highlandslands District Savings & Loans Societya term of 99 years commencing from 18 August 1977 at an annual rent of K740.00. When When the pty was last last valued in August 14, 1984, land and improvements comprising office building with reinforced concrete floor, ma walls and tile roof h af h a floor area about 290.12 sq metres in the sum of K125,0005,000. In 27 1998, the Title to t to the subject property was awardea company known as Wain No. 80 Pty Limited who immediately tely took steps to demand rent from the current tenant of the building on roperty. This was thes the timeplai plaintiff/applicant became aware that it was no longer the lessee of the property. The plaf then filed originriginating summons in this court seeking an order that the defendant produce to the plaintiff’s lawyerseruse the file on allotment 4 section 83 Goroka together with all the documents pertaining ning to the forfeiture of the State Lease in respect of allotment 4 Section 83, Goroka. This relief ranted and whad what this court is dealing with now is the disobedience of this order by the defendant/respondent.

I am satisfied on the evidence before me that the defendant is in brea the Court Order dated 9th 9th December 1998. What however con me is thes the validity of the Order in question because the order stands without any substantive proceedings on foot. Such anr can easily be sete set aside on application because it isconnected to any pending isng issue before the Court and which is the case here. It is not correct fe plainplaintiff/applicant y that we need to study or y or peruse the appropriate file to determine whether we file a suit or not. Naturally the applicantady has a cause of action against the defendant by the mere mere fact of the forfeiture alone. Is thlicant already concedoncedi the claims that the forfeiture was justified for the reasons given and accepted by the plae plaintiff? But even then, it is beto institute proceedings to correct the wrong before seekineeking interlocutory rulings or declaratory reliefs to preserve the status In this case there is no way that the status quo can be preserved. In other woer words, no actions is on foot to protect the plaintiff’s interest other than the action to obtain facts for possible suit. I am also cned about what what if any, efforts have been made by the plaintiff or its lawyers to s to inspect or produce the relevant file in question. All property are by the Rthe Registrar of Titles. There is no evio evidence before me to show that the file in question was requested for ition but was not released for perusal. This evidence is necessary to justify summonsimonsing the defendant to produce the file.; Otherwise these are conficonfidential State properties that are meant and intended to be read wherever they are kept at fees and foh duration. I am pers personall aware ware of and I would never encourage removal of files from the custody of the Registrar of Titles at the pleasure of litigants fighting over ownership of a property. Is there any eviden the plhe plaintiff or its agents or solicitors conducting a Title Search at the Registry of Titles? I have not cited any and I am concerned as to how theicant can see fit to summons the production of jailed for cfor contempt of court in that he failed to obey a Court Order. I haveady that he had disd disobeyed and it is on him to satisfatisfy the Court that it was not wilful.

Now as far as the plaintiflicant is concerned, it can do far more than what it has so far done if it is minded to proo protect its interest (if any) and it that is its intention to do so. So far the plaintiff/applicant has not established any legal basis for the production of the file on the property in question and the defendant is not obliged to produce the file other than by virtue of the Court Order ofDecember 1998 - Hadkinsokinson v Hadkinson [1952] AII ER 567.

Consequently the Order sought by the applicant is not granted but the hearing is extended by two weeks. Instead thet however orderorders the defendant either in person or by its duly authorised officers, to appear before this Court on Friday 21st May 1999 at 9:30 am and explain to the Court as to why he shnot be committed to prison ison for disobeying a Court Order durved on him. I dirI direct thatAssistanistant Registrar to forthwith cause a copy of this ruling, a copy each of the notice of motion dated 29th March 1999. Sent of Charge dat Marc9 arc9 and Affidavit ivit in Support of Application for Contempttempt of Court on the defendant personally and also on the Provincial Landicer of Eastern Highlands Province.

I award card costs on this motion to the applicant.

Lawyer for the Plaintiff/Applicant: Acanufa & Associates

No appearance by the defendants.