N10485
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

WS (HR) NO 12 OF 2011

SOLOMON MOFU FOR HIMSELF AND 82 OTHER WEST PAPUAN REFUGEES NAMED IN THE SCHEDULE TO THE WRIT
Plaintiffs

V

CONSTABLE ANDREW KUMBIA
First Defendant

JOSEPH TONDOP, METROPOLITAN SUPERINTENDENT, NCD
Second Defendant

TOM KULUNGA, COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Third Defendant

THE INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA
Fourth Defendant

Waigani: Cannings J
2023: 31st July, 5th September, 2nd October

DAMAGES – breach of human rights – destruction of houses and property by police at settlement during eviction exercise – assessment of damages after trial on liability.

The plaintiffs, settlers on Government land, succeeded at a trial in establishing a cause of action in breaches of human rights committed against them by members of the Police Force during an eviction exercise. Judgment was entered against the member of the Police Force who led the squad that entered the settlement and destroyed houses and other structures and properties including trees and food gardens, on land which had been the plaintiffs’ home for 28 years. A separate trial was conducted on assessment of damages. The 83 plaintiffs who gave evidence claimed three categories of damages: (a) special damages in respect of property destroyed or damaged, K3,306,823.90; (b damages for breaches of human rights, K830,000.00; (c) exemplary damages, K830,000.00. The total amount of damages sought was K4,966,823.90. As to an award of interest on damages under the Judicial Proceedings (Interest on Debts and Damages) Act 2015, the parties agreed that the appropriate rate was 2% but disagreed as to the date that calculation of interest should start to run. The plaintiffs argued it should be the date on which the causes of action accrued, 1 December 2010. The defendants argued it should be the date on which the writ of summons was filed, 16 November 2011.

Held:

(1)	The defendants’ argument that the plaintiffs were only entitled to damages specifically awarded in respect of breaches of human rights was misconceived and involved a misconstruction of the order on liability. The order identified the causes of action pleaded and proven by the plaintiffs (four discrete breaches of human rights), and identified who was liable (the first and fourth defendants) and identified the remedy granted to the plaintiffs (damages). Damages is a general remedy capable of being categorized in many ways and it was open to the plaintiffs to separately plead, as they did in their amended statement of claim, for special damages, damages for breaches of human rights and exemplary damages. They were entitled to an award of damages for each of those categories. 

(2)	Though there were deficiencies in the plaintiffs’ evidence, damages were awarded to each plaintiff who gave evidence in the following amounts: (a) special damages in respect of property destroyed or damaged, K461,364.86; (b) damages for breaches of human rights, K415,000.00; (c) exemplary damages, K415,000.00. Total damages awarded was K1,291,364.86. 

(3)	In addition, each plaintiff was awarded interest on the amount of damages awarded to them, at the rate of 2% per annum, for the period from the date of filing the writ, 16 November 2011, to the date of judgment on assessment of damages, a period of 11.87 years, a total of K302,954.20. The total judgment sum was K1,594,319.06

Cases Cited

The following cases are cited in the judgment:

Albert Baine v The State (1995) N1335
Alphonse Willie v Simon Kaupa (2016) N6553
Anuta Jobou v Alfred Kumasi and The State (2012) N4607
Eton Pakui v The State (2006) N2977
Francis Fuliva v Inspector Tony Wagambie Junior [2013] 1 PNGLR 142
Jacinta Albert v Joseph Aine (2019) N7772
Joe Tipaiza v James Yali (2008) N3472
Jonathan Mangope Paraia v The State (1995) N1343
Kolaip Palapi v Sergeant Poko (2001) N2274
Livingston v Raywards Coal Co [1880] 5 App Cases 25
Michael Jacob v Jim Namora & The State (2020) N8385
Mofu v Kumbia & The State (2023) N10094
Peter Wanis v Fred Sikiot and The State (1995) N1350
Stanley Baine v Arnold Ulga & The State (2019) N8076
Thompson Munvi v Arnold Ulka Takai & The State (2018) N7100

Counsel

T Yai, for the Plaintiffs
P T Ohuma, for the Defendants

2nd October 2023

1.      CANNINGS J:  This is an assessment of damages following a trial on liability. The first defendant (a member of the Police Force) and the fourth defendant (the State) were found liable for human rights breaches committed against the plaintiffs during an eviction exercise conducted by police on 29 November 2010. 

2.     The 83 plaintiffs who gave evidence are of West Papua origin who fled their traditional homes in West Papua province of Indonesia in 1982 and settled on customary land in the Nine Mile area of the National Capital District. They established a settlement, which they called Waikiki and it became home to more than 800 people. In the 1990s the land was converted to government land. State Leases were issued for portions 2152 and 2153. The registered proprietor was the then member for Maprik in the National Parliament, Sir Pita Lus.

3.      In the years 2009 and 2010, various court proceedings regarding the land resulted in orders that required some of the occupiers to vacate it and, if they did not comply, authorising the Police and authorised agents to take possession of it. 

4.      On 29 November 2010 the police entered the land and assisted persons engaged by the registered proprietor (the owner of the land) in conducting an eviction exercise over three days ending on 1 December 2010. It involved forced ejectment of the plaintiffs and destruction of houses and other structures and properties including trees and food gardens to make way for development of the land. 

5.    The plaintiffs originally commenced proceedings in the National Court against the registered proprietor, the member of the Police Force alleged to oversee the police squad involved in the exercise, the Metropolitan Superintendent, the Commissioner of Police and the State. Later, with the leave of the Court, the registered proprietor was removed as a defendant and the proceedings continued against the others. 

6.     The case took a very long time to get to trial. The reasons for the delay are unclear. Neither side made an issue of it, so the case has been dealt with on its merits. 

7.     The plaintiffs sought damages and orders that would require the defendants to provide for their resettlement. Various causes of action were pleaded: the torts of assault, negligence and trespass, and breaches of human rights under Constitution, ss 36 (freedom from inhuman treatment), 37 (protection of the law), 41 (proscribed acts), 42 (liberty of the person), 44 (arbitrary search and entry), 49 (right to privacy) and 53 (unjust deprivation of property). The resettlement orders were sought on the basis that the plaintiffs are refugees and the fourth defendant, the State, is responsible under various international treaties for their well-being and welfare. 

8.    At the trial on liability the defendants argued that the eviction exercise was conducted in accordance with orders of the National Court by persons engaged by the registered proprietor, and the police played a limited role. That argument was rejected (Mofu v Kumbia & The State (2023) N10094). Judgment was entered in favour of the plaintiffs in the following terms:

(1)	Liability has been established by all plaintiffs, for damages, against the first and fourth defendants in breach of human rights under Constitution, ss 37 (protection of the law), 41 (proscribed acts), 44 (freedom from arbitrary search and entry) and 53 (protection from unjust deprivation of property), as pleaded in the amended writ of summons and statement of claim filed 19 May 2021.

(2)	Other claims against the first and fourth defendants are dismissed.

(3)	The proceedings against the second and third defendants are dismissed.

(4)	There shall be a trial on assessment of damages in relation to the liability established against the first and fourth defendants. 

COMPETING ARGUMENTS 
 
9.     The plaintiffs claim three categories of damages: 

(a)	special damages in respect of property destroyed or damaged, K3,306,823.90; 

(b)	damages for breaches of human rights, K830,000.00; 

(c)	exemplary damages, K830,000.00. 

The total amount of damages claimed is K4,966,823.90.

10.     The defendants argue that the order on liability only awarded damages for breach of human rights, not special damages or exemplary damages. In respect of breaches of human rights, each plaintiff should be awarded no more than K1,500.00, so the total award of damages should not exceed K124,500.00.

11.     As to an award of interest on damages under the Judicial Proceedings (Interest on Debts and Damages) Act 2015, the parties agree that the appropriate rate is 2% but disagree as to the date that calculation of interest should start to run. The plaintiffs argue it should be the date on which the causes of action accrued, 1 December 2010. The defendants argued it should be the date on which the writ of summons was filed, 16 November 2011.

EVIDENCE

12.     The plaintiffs’ case consisted of affidavits sworn by 83 plaintiffs, deposing to what the police had done and the property damage the deponent had incurred and/or witnessed. There was no evidence for the defendants. 

GENERAL PRINCIPLES FOR ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES 

13.     In assessing damages I have had regard to the following principles: 

•	In a civil action, the purpose of an award of damages is to put the innocent party in the same position, as far as possible, as it would have been in if the wrongdoer had not committed the wrongful act (Livingston v Raywards Coal Co [1880] 5 App Cases 25).

•	The plaintiffs have the onus of proving their losses on the balance of probabilities. It is not sufficient to make assertions in a statement of claim and then expect the court to award what is claimed. The burden of proving a fact is upon the party alleging it, not the party who denies it (Yooken Pakilin v The State (2001) N2212).

•	Corroboration of a claim is usually required and the corroboration must come from an independent source (Albert Baine v The State (1995) N1335; Kopung Brothers Business Group v Sakawar Kasieng [1997] PNGLR 331).

•	The principles of proof and corroboration apply even when the defendant fails to present any evidence disputing the claim (Peter Wanis v Fred Sikiot and The State (1995) N1350).

•	The fact that damages cannot be assessed with certainty does not relieve the wrongdoer of the necessity of paying damages. Where precise evidence is available, the court expects to have it. However, where it is not, the court must do the best it can (Jonathan Mangope Paraia v The State (1995) N1343).

•	The court must be alert to vague claims, unsupported by corroborating evidence, as they might be false claims. The court must only uphold genuine claims (Kolaip Palapi v Sergeant Poko (2001) N2274).

APPROACH TO ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES 
14.     I will assess damages in the three categories of damages pleaded in the amended statement of claim.

(a) Special damages for property losses

15.     Each of the 83 plaintiffs gave evidence of the police destroying or seriously damaging their homes and other properties. They each made a claim for a specific Kina amount, and the amounts claimed in their affidavits are reflected in submissions. Mr Yai for the plaintiffs submitted that each claim is supported by a valuation report prepared in 2010, just before the eviction exercise took place, by a registered valuer, Alfred Nirigut, of Tabernacle Valuers, which is annexed to the affidavit of Solomon Mofu filed 8 July 2013 (exhibit P1), and that the amounts given in the plaintiffs’ evidence should be accepted. But if those amounts are not entirely accepted there should be a discount of no more than 50% applied to each claim. The total of the amounts claimed by each plaintiff is K2,306,824.30.

16.     Mr Yai submits that an additional amount of K1,000,000.00 should be awarded in respect of “land development cost”, which includes access roads, drainage and excavation and services such as water, power and sewerage, the details of which are in the affidavits of Solomon Mofu (exhibit P1) and Martin Kambu (exhibit P2). 

17.     Ms Ohuma for the defendants submitted that nothing should be awarded as the order on liability only awarded damages for breach of human rights. Nothing was awarded for property losses. 

18.     I reject that argument. It misconstrues the order on liability. The order identified the causes of action pleaded and proven by the plaintiffs (four discrete breaches of human rights), and identified who was liable (the first and fourth defendants) and identified the remedy granted to the plaintiffs (damages). Damages is a general remedy capable of being categorized in many ways and it was open to the plaintiffs to plead, as they did in their further amended statement of claim, separately for special damages, damages for breaches of human rights and exemplary damages. They are entitled to an award of damages for each of those categories. 

19.     However, I am not obliged to award the plaintiffs what they ask for. The amounts claimed appear to me to be exaggerated. The valuation report said to support each claim was not in evidence as a separate exhibit and the valuer who prepared it did not give evidence. It has limited probative value.

20.     However, it is clear that the incident happened as alleged and lot of homes and other properties were damaged and destroyed. The plaintiffs have a right to be compensated for their property losses. 

21.     I have had regard to the approach I have taken in several other cases of multiple plaintiffs in police raid or eviction exercise cases. I have invariably discounted each claim by a certain percentage to arrive at reasonable and realistic sums. For example:

•	Joe Tipaiza v James Yali (2008) N3472: 220 plaintiffs claimed property losses of K3.9 million following an unlawful squatter eviction exercise by Police and the provincial government in Madang. Each claim was discounted by 50%. 

•	Anuta Jobou v Alfred Kumasi and The State (2012) N4607: there was  an unlawful police raid of Bom village in the Rai Coast district of Madang Province in which houses were burned and other property including gardens and livestock destroyed. The claims by the 155 plaintiffs were each discounted by 50%. 

•	Francis Fuliva v Inspector Tony Wagambie Junior [2013] 1 PNGLR 142: 1,281 plaintiffs, illegal settlers on Government land in Madang, succeeded at a trial in establishing a cause of action in breach of the agreement governing their eviction. A separate trial was conducted on assessment of damages. The plaintiffs claimed two categories of damages: (1) general damages for breach of agreement and pain and suffering, K5,000.00 each; and (2) specific damages for destruction of property, different amounts being sought by each plaintiff, a sum of K13,585,763.81. It was held that there was no evidence in support of the plaintiffs’ claim for general damages and nothing was awarded. As for the claims for property damage, each claim was discounted by 90% to arrive at an award of damages for property losses. 

•	Thompson Munvi v Arnold Ulka Takai & The State (2018) N7100: there was  an unlawful police raid of a rural settlement in Madang district of Madang Province in which houses were burned and other property including gardens and livestock destroyed. The 1,335 plaintiffs obtained default judgment, but at the trial on assessment of damages, only 106 gave evidence. The 106 claims for property losses were each discounted by 90%. 

•	Stanley Baine v Arnold Ulga & The State (2019) N8076: there was  an unlawful police raid of a village on Karkar Island in Sumkar district of Madang Province in which houses were burned and other property including gardens and livestock destroyed. Default judgment was entered against the defendants. At the trial on assessment of damages, 76 plaintiffs gave evidence. Their claims for property losses were each discounted by 90%. 

•	Michael Jacob v Jim Namora & The State (2020) N8385: there was  an unlawful police raid of villages on Bagabag Island in Sumkar district of Madang Province in which houses were burned and other property including gardens and livestock destroyed. Liability was established at a trial. At the trial on assessment of damages, 107 plaintiffs gave evidence. Their claims for property losses were each discounted by 90%. 

•	Nick Betanjo v Fred Yakasa & The State (2020) N8419: there was  an unlawful police raid of Maramuni Block, Five Mile settlement, Gordon Ridge, National Capital District, carried out a few days after an alcohol-fuelled incident following  State of Origin match resulted in the death of two men. The police moved in when settlers did not hand over the suspects. Liability was established at a trial. At the trial on assessment of damages, 100 plaintiffs gave evidence. Their claims for property losses were each discounted by 90%.

•	Benjamin Mano v Inspector Tony Wagambie Jnr & The State (2023) N10410: there was  an unlawful police raid of Bilia Point settlement, Madang town in the course of a provincial government sponsored squatter eviction program. Liability was established at a trial. At the trial on assessment of damages, 54 plaintiffs gave evidence. Their claims for property losses were each discounted by 90%.

22.     The only cases in which I applied a discount of 50% were Tipaiza and Jobou. In the other cases I applied a discount of 90%. I think the claims in this case are not as exaggerated as those in most of the above cases. I have decided that a discount of 80% will apply. 

23.     This is a fair and realistic approach when the evidence is deficient. The result is shown in table 1. Column 1 is the number ascribed to the plaintiff according to the numbering in Mr Yai’s submission. Column 2 is the plaintiff’s name. Column 3 is the amount claimed by the plaintiff for property losses. Column 4 is the figure in column 3 multiplied by 20% (representing the discounting of the total claim for property losses by 80%). It is the figure in column 4 that is the amount awarded to the plaintiff for property losses. 

24.     As for the additional K1 million claimed for land development cost, I entirely reject this claim. I note that it is included in the further amended statement of claim filed on 7 March 2023 but I think it is far too vague a claim, which is inadequately particularised and not proven. I will only award special damages for property losses at the rate of 20% of the amount claimed in each plaintiff's affidavit, as shown in table 1. The plaintiffs are awarded a total of K461,364.86.

TABLE 1: AWARD OF SPECIAL DAMAGES FOR PROPERTY LOSSES 

No	Plaintiff’s name	Property losses claimed (K)	Property losses awarded (K)	
1	Solomon Mofu	33,690.60	6,738.12	
2	Martin Kambu	70,814.00	14,162.80	
3	Jonah Reuben	70,293.00	14,058.60	
4	Mecky Tomkau	23,719.00	4,743.80	
5	John Flassy	18,110.00	3,622.00	
6	Sonia Bimel	32,154.00	6,430.80	
7	Ali Gora	46,845.00	9,369.00	
8	Benny Wafumelena	32,019.90	6,403.98	
9	Andrias Norotou	30,458.00	6,091.60	
10	Adolph Fonataba	16,212.00	3,242.40	
11	Bas Fairio	42,270.00	8,454.00	
12	Christ Arampayai	20,702.60	4,140.52	
13	Ipu K	16,540.00	3,308.00	
14	Dorothy Omae	16,920.00	3,384.00	
15	Daniel Aure	34,713.20	6,942.64	
16	Esther Jeffery	19,352.00	3,870.40	
17	Bernard Apini	16,492.00	3,298.40	
18	Ezekiel Mugi	19,158.00	3,831.60	
19	Hengky Bouway	17,820.00	3,564.00	
20	Godfrey Mager	20,942.00	4,188.40	
21	Gustav Dusay	38,337.00	7,667.40	
22	Chris Arompiay	28,219.00	5,643.80	
23	Charlie Rumbiak	18,908.00	3,781.60	
24	Cathy Timbun	21,808.00	4,361.60	
25	Alphonse Sonny	17,359.00	3,471.80	
26	Dosia Tao	16,931.00	3,386.20	
27	Charley Bonny	25,034.00	5,006.80	
28	Benny Aiyong	31,187.00	6,237.40	
29	Awal Baundo	34,945.00	6,989.00	
30	Absalom Haay	32,532.00	6,506.40	
31	Allan Larry	13,530.00	2,706.00	
32	John Fonahaba	23,669.00	4,733.80	
33	Jobbi Kauke	20,399.00	4,079.80	
34	John Seseray	22,656.00	4,531.20	
35	John Ogowa	33,789.00	6,757.80	
36	Jacob Otto	19,583.00	3,916.60	
37	Joseph Ove	45,417.00	9,083.40	
38	Otto Kuike	31,460.50	6,292.10	
39	Paul Hembrim	44,900.00	8,980.00	
40	Kenny Abau	19,417.00	3,883.40	
41	Paul Sare	19,155.00	3,831.00	
42	Patrick Herome	24,157.00	4,831.40	
43	Ori Hou Kauvu	36,330.00	7,266.00	
44	Panus Boway	18,474.00	3,694.80	
45	Paul Nakos	19,209.00	3,841.80	
46	Paul Dua	24,174.30	4,834.86	
47	Lyn Israel	21,514.10	4,302.82	
48	Makiki Serah	19,914.00	3,982.80	
49	Martin Ingamier	20,280.00	4,056.00	
50	Nancy Ben	24,451.80	4,890.36	
51	Micks Gapa	25,194.00	5,038.80	
52	Maria Nelson	19,020.00	3,804.00	
53	Nimai Derev	25,985.90	5,197.18	
54	Kapara Kumbuima	19,930.00	3,986.00	
55	Kamape Jeff	20,538.00	4,107.60	
56	Nelson Bulda	30,839.50	6,167.90	
57	Pastor Basfario	44,160.00	8,832.00	
58	Kambu Otto	36,810.50	7,362.10	
59	Josephine Topa	61,410.80	12,282.16	
60	Julian Bisay	26,450.00	5,290.00	
61	Mark Nokae	56,565.00	11,313.00	
62	Mecky Wasiery	30,282.00	6,056.40	
63	Martin Owen	17,285.00	3,457.00	
64	Marshall T	21,030.00	4,206.00	
65	Mathias Koima	11,755.00	2,351.00	
66	Mama Rumbiak	19,917.00	3,983.40	
67	Max Riaba	30,817.40	6,163.48	
68	Mote Elomi	16,207.00	3,241.40	
69	Mathias Godfrey	24,340.00	4,868.00	
70	Monda Kamame	19,266.00	3,853.20	
71	Moses Mitna	76,277.00	15,255.40	
72	Niakili Seva	19,020.00	3,804.00	
73	Ponny Wafumelena	33,277.00	6,655.40	
74	Sause Wura	18,844.00	3,768.80	
75	Ruben Kebri	16,400.00	3,280.00	
76	Rose Kamane	20,566.00	4,113.20	
77	Yaldua Kimbiyal	19,294.00	3,858.80	
78	William Brabar	39,965.00	7,993.00	
79	Tonny Vatabu	44,611.00	8,922.20	
80	Tommy Imbirir	37,627.20	7,525.44	
81	Tinus Wally	23,135.00	4,627.00	
82	Steven Lila	11,387.00	2,277.40	
83	Zina Rumbiak	21,653.00	4,330.60	
	
Total	2,306,824.30	461,364.86	

(b)	Damages for breach of human rights 

25.    Mr Yai submitted that each plaintiff who gave evidence should be awarded K10,000.00 damages for their human rights proven at the trial on liability to have been breached, ie breaches of ss 37, 41, 44 and 53 of the Constitution, a total of K830,000.00.

26.     Ms Ohuma submitted that each plaintiff should be awarded K1,500.00.

27.     I award a compromise amount, being the same amount I awarded each of the 100 plaintiffs in Nick Betanjo v Fred Yakasa & The State (2020) N8419: K5,000.00. The total is K415,000.00. 

(c)	Exemplary damages

28.     Mr Yai submitted that each plaintiff who has given evidence should be awarded K10,000.00 exemplary damages. 

29.    Ms Ohuma submitted nothing should be awarded.

30.    I have already rejected the premise on which Ms Ohuma’s argument is based, so the submission that nothing should be awarded is rejected.

31.     I apply s 58(2) (compensation) of the Constitution, which states:

A person whose rights or freedoms declared or protected by this Division are infringed (including any infringement caused by a derogation of the restrictions specified in Part X.5 (internment)) on the use of emergency powers in relation to internment is entitled to reasonable damages and, if the court thinks it proper, exemplary damages in respect of the infringement.

32.     I also apply s 12 (judgments against the State) of the Claims By and Against the State Act, which states:

No exemplary damages may be awarded against the State unless it appears to the court that, regardless of the nature of the claim, there has been a breach of Constitutional rights so severe or continuous as to warrant an award of exemplary damages.

33.     I consider that it is proper that each plaintiff be awarded exemplary damages. It appears to me that there has been a breach of constitutional rights so severe as to warrant an award of exemplary damages. The amount of exemplary damages that I think is proper and warranted in this case is the same amount I awarded each of the 100 plaintiffs in Nick Betanjo v Fred Yakasa & The State (2020) N8419: K5,000.00. The total is K415,000.00. 

SUMMARY 

34.      The plaintiffs are awarded the following amounts: 

(a) special damages for property losses, K461,364.86; 

(b) damages for breaches of human rights, K415,000.00; 

(c) exemplary damages, K415,000.00. 

Total = K1,291,364.86.

The total award of damages to each plaintiff is shown in table 2. 

INTEREST 

35.     As to an award of interest on damages under the Judicial Proceedings (Interest on Debts and Damages) Act 2015, the parties agreed that the appropriate rate was 2% but disagreed as to the date that calculation of interest should start to run. The plaintiffs argued it should be the date on which the causes of action accrued, 1 December 2010. The defendants argued it should be the date on which the writ of summons was filed, 16 November 2011.

36.     I uphold the defendants’ argument. I will exercise the discretion of the Court to fix the start date as 16 November 2011. The end date will be the date of this judgment. The period is 11.73 years. Interest will be awarded by applying the formula D x I x N = A, where D is the amount of damages, I is the interest rate per annum, N is the period in years, A is the amount of interest. Interest has been calculated by multiplying each award of damages by a factor of 0.2346 (0.02 x 11.73), as shown in table 2. 

TABLE 2: TOTAL AWARD OF DAMAGES + INTEREST 
		
No	Plaintiff’s name	Special damages for property losses
(K)	Breach of human rights
(K)	Exemplary
damages
(K)	Total damages
(K)	Interest
(K)	Total damages + interest
(K)	
1	Solomon Mofu	6,738.12	5,000.00	5,000.00	16,738.12	3,926.76	20,664.88	
2	Martin Kambu	14,162.80	5,000.00	5,000.00	24,162.80	5,668.59	29,831.39	
3	Jonah Reuben	14,058.60	5,000.00	5,000.00	24,058.60	5,644.15	29,702.75	
4	Mecky Tomkau	4,743.80	5,000.00	5,000.00	14,743.80	3,458.90	18,202.70	
5	John Flassy	3,622.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	13,622.00	3,195.72	16,817.72	
6	Sonia Bimel	6,430.80	5,000.00	5,000.00	16,430.80	3,854.67	20,285.47	
7	Ali Gora	9,369.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	19,369.00	4,543.97	23,912.97	
8	Benny Wafumelena	6,403.98	5,000.00	5,000.00	16,403.98	3,848.37	20,252.35	
9	Andrias Norotou	6,091.60	5,000.00	5,000.00	16,091.60	3,775.09	19,866.69	
10	Adolph Fonataba	3,242.40	5,000.00	5,000.00	13,242.40	3,106.67	16,349.07	
11	Bas Fairio	8,454.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	18,454.00	4,329.31	22,783.31	
12	Christ Arampayai	4,140.52	5,000.00	5,000.00	14,140.52	3,317.37	17,457.89	
13	Ipu K	3,308.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	13,308.00	3,122.06	16,430.06	
14	Dorothy Omae	3,384.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	13,384.00	3,139.89	16,523.89	
15	Daniel Aure	6,942.64	5,000.00	5,000.00	16,942.64	3,974.74	20,917.38	
16	Esther Jeffery	3,870.40	5,000.00	5,000.00	13,870.40	3,254.00	17,124.40	
17	Bernard Apini	3,298.40	5,000.00	5,000.00	13,298.40	3,119.80	16,418.20	
18	Ezekiel Mugi	3,831.60	5,000.00	5,000.00	13,831.60	3,244.89	17,076.49	
19	Hengky Bouway	3,564.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	13,564.00	3,182.11	16,746.11	
20	Godfrey Mager	4,188.40	5,000.00	5,000.00	14,188.40	3,328.60	17,517.00	
21	Gustav Dusay	7,667.40	5,000.00	5,000.00	17,667.40	4,144.77	21,812.17	
22	Chris Arompiay	5,643.80	5,000.00	5,000.00	15,643.80	3,670.04	19,313.84	
23	Charlie Rumbiak	3,781.60	5,000.00	5,000.00	13,781.60	3,233.16	17,014.76	
24	Cathy Timbun	4,361.60	5,000.00	5,000.00	14,361.60	3,369.23	17,730.83	
25	Alphonse Sonny	3,471.80	5,000.00	5,000.00	13,471.80	3,160.48	16,632.28	
26	Dosia Tao	3,386.20	5,000.00	5,000.00	13,386.20	3,140.40	16,526.60	
27	Charley Bonny	5,006.80	5,000.00	5,000.00	15,006.80	3,520.60	18,527.40	
28	Benny Aiyong	6,237.40	5,000.00	5,000.00	16,237.40	3,809.29	20,046.69	
29	Awal Baundo	6,989.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	16,989.00	3,985.62	20,974.62	
30	Absalom Haay	6,506.40	5,000.00	5,000.00	16,506.40	3,872.40	20,378.80	
31	Allan Larry	2,706.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	12,706.00	2,980.83	15,686.83	
32	John Fonahaba	4,733.80	5,000.00	5,000.00	14,733.80	3,456.55	18,190.35	
33	Jobbi Kauke	4,079.80	5,000.00	5,000.00	14,079.80	3,303.12	17,382.92	
34	John Seseray	4,531.20	5,000.00	5,000.00	14,531.20	3,409.02	17,940.22	
35	John Ogowa	6,757.80	5,000.00	5,000.00	16,757.80	3,931.38	20,689.18	
36	Jacob Otto	3,916.60	5,000.00	5,000.00	13,916.60	3,264.83	17,181.43	
37	Joseph Ove	9,083.40	5,000.00	5,000.00	19,083.40	4,476.97	23,560.37	
38	Otto Kuike	6,292.10	5,000.00	5,000.00	16,292.10	3,822.13	20,114.23	
39	Paul Hembrim	8,980.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	18,980.00	4,452.71	23,432.71	
40	Kenny Abau	3,883.40	5,000.00	5,000.00	13,883.40	3,257.05	17,140.45	
41	Paul Sare	3,831.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	13,831.00	3,244.75	17,075.75	
42	Patrick Herome	4,831.40	5,000.00	5,000.00	14,831.40	3,479.45	18,310.85	
43	Ori Hou Kauvu	7,266.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	17,266.00	4,050.60	21,316.60	
44	Panus Boway	3,694.80	5,000.00	5,000.00	13,694.80	3,212.80	16,907.60	
45	Paul Nakos	3,841.80	5,000.00	5,000.00	13,841.80	3,247.29	17,089.09	
46	Paul Dua	4,834.86	5,000.00	5,000.00	14,834.86	3,480.26	18,315.12	
47	Lyn Israel	4,302.82	5,000.00	5,000.00	14,302.82	3,355.44	17,658.26	
48	Makiki Serah	3,982.80	5,000.00	5,000.00	13,982.80	3,280.36	17,263.16	
49	Martin Ingamier	4,056.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	14,056.00	3,297.54	17,353.54	
50	Nancy Ben	4,890.36	5,000.00	5,000.00	14,890.36	3,493.28	18,383.64	
51	Micks Gapa	5,038.80	5,000.00	5,000.00	15,038.80	3,528.10	18,566.90	
52	Maria Nelson	3,804.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	13,804.00	3,238.42	17,042.42	
53	Nimai Derev	5,197.18	5,000.00	5,000.00	15,197.18	3,565.26	18,762.44	
54	Kapara Kumbuima	3,986.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	13,986.00	3,281.12	17,267.12	
55	Kamape Jeff	4,107.60	5,000.00	5,000.00	14,107.60	3,309.64	17,417.24	
56	Nelson Bulda	6,167.90	5,000.00	5,000.00	16,167.90	3,792.99	19,960.89	
57	Pastor Basfario	8,832.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	18,832.00	4,417.99	23,249.99	
58	Kambu Otto	7,362.10	5,000.00	5,000.00	17,362.10	4,073.15	21,435.25	
59	Josephine Topa	12,282.16	5,000.00	5,000.00	22,282.16	5,227.39	27,509.55	
60	Julian Bisay	5,290.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	15,290.00	3,587.03	18,877.03	
61	Mark Nokae	11,313.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	21,313.00	5,000.03	26,313.03	
62	Mecky Wasiery	6,056.40	5,000.00	5,000.00	16,056.40	3,766.83	19,823.23	
63	Martin Owen	3,457.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	13,457.00	3,157.01	16,614.01	
64	Marshall T	4,206.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	14,206.00	3,332.73	17,538.73	
65	Mathias Koima	2,351.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	12,351.00	2,897.54	15,248.54	
66	Mama Rumbiak	3,983.40	5,000.00	5,000.00	13,983.40	3,280.51	17,263.91	
67	Max Riaba	6,163.48	5,000.00	5,000.00	16,163.48	3,791.95	19,955.43	
68	Mote Elomi	3,241.40	5,000.00	5,000.00	13,241.40	3,106.43	16,347.83	
69	Mathias Godfrey	4,868.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	14,868.00	3,488.03	18,356.03	
70	Monda Kamame	3,853.20	5,000.00	5,000.00	13,853.20	3,249.96	17,103.16	
71	Moses Mitna	15,255.40	5,000.00	5,000.00	25,255.40	5,924.92	31,180.32	
72	Niakili Seva	3,804.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	13,804.00	3,238.42	17,042.42	
73	Ponny Wafumelena	6,655.40	5,000.00	5,000.00	16,655.40	3,907.36	20,562.76	
74	Sause Wura	3,768.80	5,000.00	5,000.00	13,768.80	3,230.16	16,998.96	
75	Ruben Kebri	3,280.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	13,280.00	3,115.49	16,395.49	
76	Rose Kamane	4,113.20	5,000.00	5,000.00	14,113.20	3,310.96	17,424.16	
77	Yaldua Kimbiyal	3,858.80	5,000.00	5,000.00	13,858.80	3,251.27	17,110.07	
78	William Brabar	7,993.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	17,993.00	4,221.16	22,214.16	
79	Tonny Vatabu	8,922.20	5,000.00	5,000.00	18,922.20	4,439.15	23,361.35	
80	Tommy Imbirir	7,525.44	5,000.00	5,000.00	17,525.44	4,111.47	21,636.91	
81	Tinus Wally	4,627.00	5,000.00	5,000.00	14,627.00	3,431.49	18,058.49	
82	Steven Lila	2,277.40	5,000.00	5,000.00	12,277.40	2,880.28	15,157.68	
83	Zina Rumbiak	4,330.60	5,000.00	5,000.00	14,330.60	3,361.96	17,692.56	
	           Total	461,364.86	415,000.00	415,000.00	1,291,364.86	302,954.20	1,594,319.06	

COSTS

37.     The general rule is that costs follow the event, ie the successful party has its costs paid for by the losing party on a party-to-party basis unless the circumstances of the case justify the exercise of discretion in some other way. I do not see any such circumstances here. Costs will follow the event

ORDER 

1.	Damages are payable by the first and fourth defendants to each plaintiff whose name appears in the schedule, in the amount shown for each plaintiff.

2.	In addition, interest is payable by the first and fourth defendants to each plaintiff whose name appears in the schedule, in the amount shown for each plaintiff.

3.	The first and fourth defendants shall pay the plaintiffs’ costs of the entire proceedings on a party-party basis, which shall, if not agreed, be taxed. 

4.	The proceedings are thereby determined and the file is closed.

SCHEDULE
 
No	Plaintiff’s name	Total damages (K)	Interest (K)	Total damages + interest (K)	
1	Solomon Mofu	16,738.12	3,926.76	20,664.88	
2	Martin Kambu	24,162.80	5,668.59	29,831.39	
3	Jonah Reuben	24,058.60	5,644.15	29,702.75	
4	Mecky Tomkau	14,743.80	3,458.90	18,202.70	
5	John Flassy	13,622.00	3,195.72	16,817.72	
6	Sonia Bimel	16,430.80	3,854.67	20,285.47	
7	Ali Gora	19,369.00	4,543.97	23,912.97	
8	Benny Wafumelena	16,403.98	3,848.37	20,252.35	
9	Andrias Norotou	16,091.60	3,775.09	19,866.69	
10	Adolph Fonataba	13,242.40	3,106.67	16,349.07	
11	Bas Fairio	18,454.00	4,329.31	22,783.31	
12	Christ Arampayai	14,140.52	3,317.37	17,457.89	
13	Ipu K	13,308.00	3,122.06	16,430.06	
14	Dorothy Omae	13,384.00	3,139.89	16,523.89	
15	Daniel Aure	16,942.64	3,974.74	20,917.38	
16	Esther Jeffery	13,870.40	3,254.00	17,124.40	
17	Bernard Apini	13,298.40	3,119.80	16,418.20	
18	Ezekiel Mugi	13,831.60	3,244.89	17,076.49	
19	Hengky Bouway	13,564.00	3,182.11	16,746.11	
20	Godfrey Mager	14,188.40	3,328.60	17,517.00	
21	Gustav Dusay	17,667.40	4,144.77	21,812.17	
22	Chris Arompiay	15,643.80	3,670.04	19,313.84	
23	Charlie Rumbiak	13,781.60	3,233.16	17,014.76	
24	Cathy Timbun	14,361.60	3,369.23	17,730.83	
25	Alphonse Sonny	13,471.80	3,160.48	16,632.28	
26	Dosia Tao	13,386.20	3,140.40	16,526.60	
27	Charley Bonny	15,006.80	3,520.60	18,527.40	
28	Benny Aiyong	16,237.40	3,809.29	20,046.69	
29	Awal Baundo	16,989.00	3,985.62	20,974.62	
30	Absalom Haay	16,506.40	3,872.40	20,378.80	
31	Allan Larry	12,706.00	2,980.83	15,686.83	
32	John Fonahaba	14,733.80	3,456.55	18,190.35	
33	Jobbi Kauke	14,079.80	3,303.12	17,382.92	
34	John Seseray	14,531.20	3,409.02	17,940.22	
35	John Ogowa	16,757.80	3,931.38	20,689.18	
36	Jacob Otto	13,916.60	3,264.83	17,181.43	
37	Joseph Ove	19,083.40	4,476.97	23,560.37	
38	Otto Kuike	16,292.10	3,822.13	20,114.23	
39	Paul Hembrim	18,980.00	4,452.71	23,432.71	
40	Kenny Abau	13,883.40	3,257.05	17,140.45	
41	Paul Sare	13,831.00	3,244.75	17,075.75	
42	Patrick Herome	14,831.40	3,479.45	18,310.85	
43	Ori Hou Kauvu	17,266.00	4,050.60	21,316.60	
44	Panus Boway	13,694.80	3,212.80	16,907.60	
45	Paul Nakos	13,841.80	3,247.29	17,089.09	
46	Paul Dua	14,834.86	3,480.26	18,315.12	
47	Lyn Israel	14,302.82	3,355.44	17,658.26	
48	Makiki Serah	13,982.80	3,280.36	17,263.16	
49	Martin Ingamier	14,056.00	3,297.54	17,353.54	
50	Nancy Ben	14,890.36	3,493.28	18,383.64	
51	Micks Gapa	15,038.80	3,528.10	18,566.90	
52	Maria Nelson	13,804.00	3,238.42	17,042.42	
53	Nimai Derev	15,197.18	3,565.26	18,762.44	
54	Kapara Kumbuima	13,986.00	3,281.12	17,267.12	
55	Kamape Jeff	14,107.60	3,309.64	17,417.24	
56	Nelson Bulda	16,167.90	3,792.99	19,960.89	
57	Pastor Basfario	18,832.00	4,417.99	23,249.99	
58	Kambu Otto	17,362.10	4,073.15	21,435.25	
59	Josephine Topa	22,282.16	5,227.39	27,509.55	
60	Julian Bisay	15,290.00	3,587.03	18,877.03	
61	Mark Nokae	21,313.00	5,000.03	26,313.03	
62	Mecky Wasiery	16,056.40	3,766.83	19,823.23	
63	Martin Owen	13,457.00	3,157.01	16,614.01	
64	Marshall T	14,206.00	3,332.73	17,538.73	
65	Mathias Koima	12,351.00	2,897.54	15,248.54	
66	Mama Rumbiak	13,983.40	3,280.51	17,263.91	
67	Max Riaba	16,163.48	3,791.95	19,955.43	
68	Mote Elomi	13,241.40	3,106.43	16,347.83	
69	Mathias Godfrey	14,868.00	3,488.03	18,356.03	
70	Monda Kamame	13,853.20	3,249.96	17,103.16	
71	Moses Mitna	25,255.40	5,924.92	31,180.32	
72	Niakili Seva	13,804.00	3,238.42	17,042.42	
73	Ponny Wafumelena	16,655.40	3,907.36	20,562.76	
74	Sause Wura	13,768.80	3,230.16	16,998.96	
75	Ruben Kebri	13,280.00	3,115.49	16,395.49	
76	Rose Kamane	14,113.20	3,310.96	17,424.16	
77	Yaldua Kimbiyal	13,858.80	3,251.27	17,110.07	
78	William Brabar	17,993.00	4,221.16	22,214.16	
79	Tonny Vatabu	18,922.20	4,439.15	23,361.35	
80	Tommy Imbirir	17,525.44	4,111.47	21,636.91	
81	Tinus Wally	14,627.00	3,431.49	18,058.49	
82	Steven Lila	12,277.40	2,880.28	15,157.68	
83	Zina Rumbiak	14,330.60	3,361.96	17,692.56	
	
Total	1,291,364.86	302,954.20	1,594,319.06	
_____________________________________________________________
Bristle Lawyers: Lawyers for the Plaintiffs 	
Solicitor-General: Lawyers for the Defendants