Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
National Court of Papua New Guinea |
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]
OS NO. 197 OF 2019
BETWEEN
ROSE MALAI
First Plaintiff
AND
NATIONAL HOUSING COPROATION LIMITED
Second Plaintiff
AND
LUCKY STRIKE NO. 7 LIMITED
First Defendant
AND
TUSA MEDICAL CENTRE
Second Defendant
Waigani: Linge AJ
2021: 15th October & 9th November
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Whether actual fraud must be proven – whether proof of constructive fraud or equitable fraud is sufficient – indefeasibility of title – Land Registration Act
Cases Cited:
Mudge v Secretary for Lands [1985] PNGLR 387
Papua New Guinea Club Inc. v Nasaun Holdings Limited (2004) NZ603 and Koitachi Ltd v Walter Schnaubelt (2007) SC 870
National Council of Young Men Christian Association v Firms Services Ltd, (2017) PGSC 20; SC 1596
Pius Tikili & ors v Home Base Real Estate Ltd PGSC1; SC1563
Counsel:
Laken Lepatu Aigilo, for the Plaintiffs
9th November, 2021
Issue
Evidence
9. That purported transfer show a transfer from National Housing Corporation on the 16 July 2018 to Tusa Medical Centre and subsequently from it to Lucky Strike No.7 on the 26 July 2018.
10. The evidence shows interestingly that a contract of sale between Tusa Medical Centre and Lucky Strike No.7 was dated 31 July 2018 meaning that transfer had already taken place before the execution of the Contract of Sale.
11. The evidence also show that the National Housing Corporation had not sold and no record of sale of the subject property to Tusa Medical Centre.
12. The First and Second Defendants had not filed any affidavits for consideration by the Court.
Consideration
13. Rose Malai and her deceased husband Dr. Malai had made rental payments on the property for K89,000.00.
14. As to whether the payment is sufficient to give Rose Malai the legal right to Section 186, Allotment 14, Lae, this must be considered in accordance with law.
15. The First Defendant, Lucky Strike No. 7 Limited successfully evicted Rose Malai and her dependants on the strength of a purported Lease Title.
The Law
16. Ownership of land in Papua New Guinea follows the principle known as the Torren System. Apart from customary land ownership, which is not the case here, landownership and transfers in alienated/State land is procured under the Torren System.
17. A person who holds a registered title is said to have an indefeasibility of title. It is settled law in this jurisdiction: Mudge v Secretary for Lands [1985] PNGLR 387. It means that a title cannot be annulled except in certain circumstances provided for in Section 33 of the Land Registration Act.
18. Fraud must be pleaded sufficiently. It is one of the exceptions recognized under the Land Registration Act to invalidate an otherwise good title.
19. Courts in this country have defined “fraud” in two (2) ways. First category is actual or narrow fraud. This narrow view has been used in Papua New Guinea Club Inc. v Nasaun Holdings Limited (2004) N2603 and in Koitachi Ltd v Walter Schnaubelt (2007) SC 870.
20. The wider view/constructive fraud is followed in Emas Estate v Mea [1993] PNGLR 219. Numerous other cases subscribe to this view including, National Council of Young Men Christian Association v Firms Services Ltd, (2017) PGSC 20; SC 1596 and Pius Tikili & ors v Home Base Real Estate Limited (2017) SC1563.
21. Both constructions are equally relied on depending on the circumstances of each case.
22. Transfer of land is governed by the Land Registration (Act). Section 42 of the Act sets out the legal requirements for transfer and it includes execution of transfer instrument, consideration, and lodgement at the Registrar of Titles office and stamp duties.
Findings
23. The First Plaintiff, Rose Malai is challenging the title of Lucky Strike No. 7 Limited, based on the allegation of fraud.
24. In this case, the Plaintiff does not have a registered title. She was only a tenant and had equitable right or limited right as a prospective purchaser pursuant to an agreement she and her deceased husband had with the Second Plaintiff.
25. She can be displaced or evicted by a person who has a clear or registered title over the same parcel of land.
26. The First Defendant assert that it has a registered title over the property. It was on that basis that it evicted the Plaintiff from Section 186, Allotment 14, Lae, Morobe Province in January 2019.
27. I have considered the transfer between the National Housing Corporation, Tusa Medical Centre and Lucky Strike No. 7 Limited and there is something about these transfers that give me cause for concern.
28. A critical matter is that the National Housing Corporation had denied it had transferred the property to Tusa Medical Centre.
29. This means that the title is defective ab initio.
30. The timing of the transfers and contract of sale in relation to the purported transfer from Tusa Medical Centre to Lucky Strike No.7 appear to be disjointed.
31. Either there was fraud or irregularity in dealing between the First and Second Defendant.
32. The Internal Revenue Commission, to which Stamp Duties is normally paid, had denied any record of payment of Stamp Duties and the transfers.
33. It is my conclusion that the purported transfers from the National Housing Corporation to Tusa Medical Centre and ultimately to Lucky Strike No.7 Limited have been fraught with uncertainty and irregularity. Therefore, I find that there is constructive fraud and rule accordingly.
Order
___________________________________________________________
Gibson Bon Lawyers: Lawyers for the Plaintiffs
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/pg/cases/PGNC/2021/494.html