Pastor Johnson Pyawa for and on behalf of Simakin Tribesmen v CR Andake Nunwa for and on behalf of Kisan Tribesmen and CR Pole Yaluma for and on behalf of Kisan Lai Tribesmen and CR Tapu Yaka for and on behalf of Lambe Kayagon Lai Tribesmen and CR Kaiwa Wambi for and on behalf of Kale Tribesmen and CR Imbu Wape for and on behalf of Andaluni Tribesmen and CR Lai for and on behalf of Kolo Taika Tribesmen and CR Lali for and on behalf of Kolo Kungu Tribesmen (2010) N4143

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Court: National Court
• Date: 11 October 2010
• Citation: (2010) N4143
• Docket Number: OS NO 543 OF 2010
• Year: 2010

Full Title: OS NO 543 OF 2010; Pastor Johnson Pyawa for and on behalf of Simakin Tribesmen v CR Andake Nunwa for and on behalf of Kisan Tribesmen and CR Pole Yaluma for and on behalf of Kisan Lai Tribesmen and CR Tapu Yaka for and on behalf of Lambe Kayagon Lai Tribesmen and CR Kaiwa Wambi for and on behalf of Kale Tribesmen and CR Imbu Wape for and on behalf of Andaluni Tribesmen and CR Lai for and on behalf of Kolo Taika Tribesmen and CR Lali for and on behalf of Kolo Kungu Tribesmen (2010) N4143

National Court: Makail, J

Judgment Delivered: 11 October 2010

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Injunctions - Quia timet injunctions - Principles of - Purpose of - Preservation of status quo - Tribal fight - Imminent danger to lives and property - Evidence of - Sufficiency of - Circumstances where quia timet injunctions may lie discussed - Application refused.

Cases cited:

Papua New Guinea cases:

Robinson v National Airlines Commission [1983] PNGLR 476

Overseas cases:

Hubbard -v- Vosper [1972] 2 WLR 389

Other references & texts:

FH Lawson, Remedies of English Law, Butterworths (2nd ed 1980)

INTERLOCUTORY RULING

11th October, 2010

1. MAKAIL, J: This is an ex-parte application by the plaintiff who represents himself and members of the Simakin Tribe of Lumusa in the border of Western Highlands and Enga provinces seeking inter-alia, orders to restrain the defendants who are councilors of six wards in that area and their respective tribesmen from entering the Simakin tribe’s customary land and provoking, threatening, intimidating or declaring war on his tribe until further order. He also seeks to restrain his own tribesmen from getting involved or joining the tribal fight until further order.

2. I heard his submissions on 8th October, 2010. I have also perused the documents he has filed in support of the application. They were:

1. Originating summons filed on 22nd September, 2010;

2. His affidavit in support sworn and filed on 22nd September, 2010;

3. Undertaking as to Damages filed on 22nd September, 2010; and

4. Authority to Act filed on 22nd September, 2010.

3. First, I accept that this is a representative action and he has authority from his tribesmen by virtue of the Authority to Act (supra) to represent them as the principal plaintiff in this action. Secondly, I accept that he has given an undertaking to pay any damages if the Court grants the interlocutory injunction and the action ultimately fails and the interlocutory injunction is discharged. Thirdly, I am satisfied based on his affidavit in support that there is some urgency in relation to the hearing of the application. This is because there is a tribal fight in that area and it poses potential danger to lives and property of the plaintiff’s tribe. I grant leave to him to move the application ex-parte.

...