Victor Golpak v Patrick Alnongrea Kali, Alois Malori, Simon Kali, Felix Siname, Mumore Pty Ltd and Niugini Lumber Merchants Pty Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Doherty J
• Judgment Date: 20 October 1993
• Citation: [1993] PNGLR 491
• Court: National Court
• Year: 1993
• Judgement Number: N1182

National Court: Doherty J

Judgment Delivered: 20 October 1993

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

VICTOR GOLPAK

V

PATRICK ALONGREA KALI; ALOIS MALORI; SIMON KALI; FELIX SINAME; MUMORE PTY LTD; AND

NIUGINI LUMBER MERCHANTS PTY LTD

Rabaul

Doherty J

20 October 1993

REAL PROPERTY — Customary land — Right to make contract for use — Claims based on different succession systems.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — Jurisdiction of National Court — Constitution s 155 does not give the Court power to decide ownership of customary land — Jurisdiction of Local Land Court — Land Disputes Settlement Act.

Facts

The plaintiff claimed to have acquired land under the matrilineal system of inheritance, whilst the fifth and sixth defendants' claim was on the basis of a different succession system. The plaintiff sought declarations and mandatory injunctions relating to a contract for the use of the disputed land, entered into by the defendants. He claimed that the defendants had no customary title to the land and, therefore, could not make the contract.

Held

1. Who acquired a right to the land in custom is a fundamental issue.

2. Only a person with right has locus standi to challenge the contract, which is an "interest in land".

3. Despite ss 155 and 166 of the Constitution, jurisdiction to determine issues of ownership and title of customary land is in the Local Land Court under the Land Disputes Settlement Act Ch 45. Until that is determined, the National Court cannot arbitrate.

Counsel

K Latu, for the plaintiff.

S Lupalrea, for the first — fourth defendants.

D Lidgett, for the fifth — sixth defendants.

20 October 1993

DOHERTY J: This is an application relating to a contract made by the first and second defendants with the fifth and sixth defendants over the use of land as a log pond. The plaintiff claims that the first four defendants had no right to make the contract. He says the land which is in issue is customary land, it is not alienated land; hence, Part IX of the Land Act (ss 73, 74) Ch 185 would apply to it, and contracts...