Manub Edom v Wanor Agun (2013) N5225

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Date: 24 May 2013
• Citation: (2013) N5225
• Docket Number: CIA NO 172 0F 2011
• Court: National Court
• Year: 2013

Full Title: CIA NO 172 0F 2011; Manub Edom v Wanor Agun (2013) N5225

National Court: Cannings J

Judgment Delivered: 24 May 2013

LAND—Customary land—Land Disputes Settlement Act Chapter 75, s64 (failure to comply with orders)—appeal against conviction and sentence by District Court re offence under s64—whether open to District Court to order eviction of person convicted of offence under s64—whether District Court erred in interpretation of order of Local Land Court—whether District Court gave person charged a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The District Court convicted the appellant of an offence under s64 of the Land Disputes Settlement Act, refusing to comply with an order of the Local Land Court, and sentenced him to two months imprisonment and ordered that he and his family be “forcefully removed with the assistance of Police from the subject land”. The appellant appealed against his conviction and sentence on four grounds: (1) excess of jurisdiction as the District Court lacked power under Section 64 to order eviction; (2) misinterpretation of the order of the Local Land Court the subject of the charge; (3) failure to take account of the appellant’s and his ancestors’ equitable interest in the land; (4) failure to give a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

Held:

(1) There was an excess of jurisdiction in the sentence in two respects: (a) no law gives the District Court power to include in the penalty for an offence under Section 64 an order for eviction; and (b) the Local Land Court order the subject of the offence made no provision for eviction. Ground 1 of the appeal was upheld.

(2) The District Court misinterpreted the Local Land Court order, which gave the appellant’s ancestors (and by implication the appellant) usufructuary rights over the subject land. Ground 2 was upheld.

(3) The question of whether the appellant and his ancestors had equitable interests in the land was irrelevant to the primary question before the District Court which was whether the appellant had failed to comply with the order of the Local Land Court. There was no error of law in that regard. Ground 3 was dismissed.

(4) There was insufficient evidence that the appellant was denied the opportunity to be heard. Ground 4 was dismissed.

(5) Two grounds of appeal having succeeded, the National Court was satisfied that there had been a substantial miscarriage of justice and allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction and sentence and entered a verdict of not guilty.

(6) Remarks: as to suggested methods by which the appellant and the respondent might resolve their dispute.

Cases cited

The following cases are cited in the judgment:

Francis Tarei v The State (2008) N3539; Herman Gawi v PNG Ready Mixed Concrete Pty Ltd [1984] PNGLR 74; Gaya Nomgui v The Administration (Re Lae Administration Land) [1974] PNGLR 349; Re Yabo Sabo [1995] PNGLR 13; The State v Bruno Tanfa Chilong (2009) N3578

APPEAL

This was an appeal from a decision of the District Court.

1. Cannings J: The Madang District Court convicted the appellant, Manub Edom, of an offence under s64 (failure to comply with orders) of the Land Disputes Settlement Act for refusing to comply with an order of the Local Land Court. He was sentenced to two months imprisonment (the sentence has been stayed pending determination of this appeal) and he and his family were ordered to be “forcefully removed with the assistance of Police from the subject land”. The appellant appeals against his conviction and sentence on four grounds:

(1) excess of jurisdiction as the District Court lacked power under s64 to order eviction;

(2) misinterpretation of the order of the Local Land Court the subject of the charge;

(3) failure to take account of the appellant’s and his ancestors’ equitable interest in the land;

(4) failure to give a reasonable opportunity to...