Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Papua New Guinea District Court

Kola v Jaggie [2006] PGDC 23; DC614 (14 March 2006)

DC614

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE
SITTING IN ITS CIVIL JURISDICTION]

DCCi 169 of 2005

BETWEEN

AIGE KOLA
Plaintiff

AND

REX JAGGIE
Respondent

Goroka: G Vetunawa
2004: August 14
2006: March 14

Cases Cited
Nil

References
Nil

Counsel
Plaintiff: Present in Person
Respondent: Present in Person

JUDGMENT

G Vetunawa: This is an application for restraining order against the respondent. The plaintiff is a settler from Simbu Province. The respondent is the land owner of the land the plaintiff claimed to have bought from the respondent’s father upon signing of the Statutory Declaration on 21st January 1989. Respondent claimed that his father had no sole right to sell the land as the land was not owned by himself, but communally owned by the clan. Further to that his father secretly sold the land without the knowledge of his children who are the successors to the ownership of the land. The plaintiff puts weight on the strength of the Statutory Declaration as a conclusive evidence of his ownership of the land.

2. My opinion is simple that the customary land was not solely owned by the respondents father. The customary land was communally owned by the clan. Therefore the signing of the Statutory Declaration by the respondents father and the plaintiff was null and void and had no legal effect but was an illegal sale of land because the other owners of the land didn’t know about the sale. The Statutory Declaration has power if it is legally used in a process which is legally proper. The Statutory Declaration is not a golden document.

3. People can use the Statutory Declaration in an honest way and in an improper way. If it is used improperly then it has no effect in law. I do find that the sale of the land was illegal and improper and the Statutory Declaration was illegally used in an improper sale process.

4. Therefore, I should not grant the order sought by the respondent and hence case be struck out. Respondent be discharged.

Plaintiff: In Person
Respondent: In Person