Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Papua New Guinea Local Land Court

Pupune v Hurutuwe [2009] PGLLC 1; DC852 (26 June 2009)

DC852

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE
SITTING IN IT’S LOCAL LAND COURT JURISDICTION]

LLC No. 26 of 2008

BETWEEN:

APINE PUPUNE
Complainant

AND:

TAMA HURUTUWE
Defendant

Goroka: M. Ipang Chairperson -
Mediator – Kesko Kasimo
Mediator – Lore Klepetamero
Mediator – Tovepa Atao
District Lands Officer – Benson Imara
2008: December 09
2009: February 5, 10
May 25, 28
June 1, 24, 26

CIVIL: Land Disputes Settlement Act – Contempt of Court – is a wilful act, omission or statement that tends to impair the authority or impede the functioning of a court – Primary purpose of contempt – power is to preserve the effectiveness and sustain the power of the courts – Apine’s letter of 23rd June 2009, contains highly contemptuous statements.

Cases Cited
Nil

References
Nil

Counsel
Complainant, In Person
Defendant, In Person

DECISION

M IPANG LLCM: This is a complaint for breach of a Temporary Order issued on the 9th of December 2008. I have issued a Temporary Order based on Mr. Apine Pupune’s application and set the matter for pre-trial conference on the 5th February 2009.

2. On the 10th February 2009, I had to order both parties back to do re-mediation on the basis that land mediation was not done properly. Initially the dispute was between Sogowe Lume and Tama Hurutuwe. When dispute was referred to Loacal Land Court, Apine Pupune was not a party at mediation level. Matter was referred back so Apine Pupune could be a party and participate at that forum.

3. On the 25th of May 2009, Apine Pupune complained that Tama Hurutuwe breached the Temporary Order. I instructed land mediators Lore Klepetamero, Tovepa Atao, Kesko Kasimo and District Lands Officer Benson Imara to do physical inspection and to report back to me on whether Tama is building a new house or mending his old house. On the 28th May 2009 physical inspection was done.

4. On Monday 1st of June 2009, my land mediators Lore and Tovepa with the absence of Kesko and District Lands Officer Mr. Imara, both land mediators briefed me in front of Apine Pupune and Tama Hurutuve that Mr. Tama Hurutuwe did not build a new house but was repairing his old house.

5. Mr. Pupune was given his opportunity to explain, said he does not like Tama to build his house. Tama said he has no other house. He said he just repair his old house (Kunai house) to shelter his family.

6. I made a ruling that Tama Hurutuwe is not building a new house as claimed by Apine. Tama is just mending the Kunai-roof to shelter his family. The house is not a new one but an old one. I explained to Apine that if Tama is building a new house, he would be guilty of breach of Temporary Order. I, then granted permission for Tama to complete repair on his old Kunai-grass house. My ruling was based on humanitarian ground. In that if I stop Tama from repairing his old house, where will his family and himself, be sheltered? I have explained my ruling in simple terms for Apine to see logic in my decision.

7. On the 23rd June 2009, Mr. Apine Pupune wrote a letter and addressed to District Administrator and copies to PPO LLG Manager – Goroka and PPA – Lands EHP. In his letter he said;

Paragraph 8: Mr. Martin Ipang told Tama Hurutuwe to build the house which makes me upset.

Paragraph 10: My land history not heard by land mediators.

Paragraph 12. I missed school working days because of unnecessary delays.

Paragraph 13: My people getting frustrated and planning to cause delay.

Paragraph 16: We want new land mediation. My conclusion is I want new land mediators to mediate. We don’t want Mr. Martin Ipang to hear my case. We want Senior Provincial Magistrate to hear our Land Court. I want to go back to my teaching job in term 3. I want the new mediation to take place in term 3 holidays.

8. Apine concluded his letter of 23rd June 2009, in the following words;

“I am totally dissatisfied and disagreed with the way Mr. Martin Ipang is handling this Land Court issue. The person provoking the preventive orders is not being arrested and prosecuted. The policeman who handled the preventive order is also dissatisfied with Tama Hurutuwe. He is going above the law and Mr. Martin Ipang hasn’t taken any positive steps to lay charge on him. He only wants to hear the Land Court. I as the Principle landowner, I want the land court to be withdrawn and restart all over again.”

9. Mr. A. Pupune had requested for a Temporary Order and based on his application, a Temporary Order was issued. He has also requested by a letter written to this court to further adjourned this court to a later date as he has teaching duties. This court has granted all reliefs that he sought. The query on whether Tama is guilty of breach of Temporary Order was well-handled. Fairness and principle of natural justice (right to be heard) was accorded to all parties. The house that Apine referred to was not a new house but Tama’s old house, and he was only repairing it. This is not a new building. This was confirmed by land mediators Tovepa and Lore.

10. The contents of Mr. Apine Pupune’s letter dated 23rd June 2009 is highly contemptuous and misleading in every particulars. This court view Mr. Apine Pupune’s letter as another deliberate attempt to further delay this case and interfering with administration of justice and the function of the court.

11. The Contempt of Court is defined as a wilful act, omission or statement that tends to impair the authority or impede the functioning of a court. So the primary purpose of the contempt power is to preserve the effectiveness and sustain the power of the courts. I have address my mind to the fact that the power to punish for contempt is awesome and carries with is the equally great responsibility to apply it judiciously and only when contempt is clearly and unequivocally shown.

12. The section 62 of the Land Disputes Settlement Act, Chapter 45 deals with the offence of Contempt of Court. Section 62 (3) is in the following words;

“(3) A person who-

(a) wilfully interrupts, interferes with or disrupts the proceedings of a Provincial Land Court or a Local Land Court; or

(b) wilfully obstructs or attempts to obstruct –

(a) a Provincial Land Court, Local Land Court, Local Land Magistrate or Land mediator; or

(b) a person in attendance in court; or

(c) a person acting under this part; is guilty of an offence”.

Penalty: A fine not exceeding K200.00 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months.

13. There has been no Land Court hearings in Goroka, E.H.P and Local Land Court for this matter for 16 years. Attempts to re-activate hearing and disposals of land disputes can only be destroyed by shallow and ill-intentions of persons like Apine Pupune. I can not allow this to happen. There are appropriate ways to pursue his cause of action then the one he undertook.

14. I find Apine Pupune guilty of Contempt of Court and impose a sentence of four (4) months imprisonment. Apine Pupune being an educated School Teacher should have known better that writing and criticising court is interfering with due course of justice and attract Contempt of Court penalty. The sentence of four (04) months imprisonment should have deterrent effect on others.

______________________

Complainant, In Person
Defendant, In Person