Leo Maniwa v Aron Malijiwi

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Citation: (2013) N5687
• Date: 04 July 2014
• Court: National Court
• Year: 2013

Full : OS JR No. 983 OF 2011; Leo Maniwa for himself and on behalf of Kowiru village and Others as per attached Schedule v Aron Malijiwi in his capacity as Director of Limawo Holdings Ltd & Director of Sepik Oil Palm Plantation Ltd and Hui Teck Lau in his capacity as Director of Wewak Agriculture Development Ltd & Director of Sepik Oil Palm Plantation Ltd and Limawo Holdings Ltd and Wewak Agriculture Development Limited and Sepik Oil Palm Plantation Limited and Honourable Puka Temu - in his capacity as Minister of Lands & Physical Planning and Pepi Kimas in his capacity as Secretary, Department of Lands & Physical Planning and The Independent State of Papua New Guinea (2013) N5687

National Court: Gavara-Nanu J

Judgment Delivered: 4 July 2014

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Land Law - Special Agricultural & Business Lease - Land Act, 1996; s10, s11 and s102—Land Groups Incorporation Act 1974, s5 (2) (c), s(6) and s33 (1) - Constitution; s5 and s53 - Meaning of meaningful consultation with landowners discussed.

Cases cited

Doriga Mahuru & Ors v. Hon. Lucas Dekenai & Ors (2013) N5305

Musa Valley Management Company Limited & Musa Century Limited v. Pepi

Kimas & Ors (2010) N3827

1. GAVARA-NANU J.: The plaintiffs seek review of the decision of the Minister for Lands and Physical Planning, Hon. Puka Temu, made on 2 September, 2008, to grant a Special Agricultural and Business Lease (SABL) over their customary land described as Portion 144 C, East Sepik Province, to Sepik Oil Palm Plantation Limited, the fifth defendant, which is the developer.

2. The plaintiffs seek an order in the nature of certiorari to quash the decision and to restore the land to them. This is the principal relief sought. The other relief are consequential which are sought by way of declarations. These relief relate to environmental damage, validity of agreements for the developer to clear forests, to harvest logs and to plant oil palm on the land.

4. The plaintiffs submitted that their land was acquired by the State which converted it into SABL without their consent. They submitted that a purported consent for their land to be converted to SABL was given fraudulently by a small and selected group of people who had vested interests. They further argued that even if the consent was given by the people who may have had authority to give consent, the landowners were not consulted, as such the consent was fraudulently given and was in breach of mandatory statutory requirements under the Land Act 1996, Land Groups Incorporation Act 1974, Forest Act 1991 and the Constitution.

5. The plaintiffs argued that the SABL was granted specifically in breach of ss. 10, 11 and 102 of the Land Act, ss. 7 (1) and 8 of the Environment Act, 2000, s. 90B of the Forest Act, ss. 5 (2) (c), 6 and 33 (1) and (2) of the Land Groups Incorporation Act 1974 and s. 53 of the Constitution.

6. The plaintiffs submitted that there was no awareness conducted by the defendants nor was there any meaningful consultation with the landowners before their land was acquired by the State for the SABL.

7. The defendants submitted that the SABL was properly and lawfully issued to the fifth defendant, they argued that the consent of the landowners was obtained before the SABL was issued. They said all the relevant requirements for the grant of SABL were complied with. In support of these arguments the defendants also adduced the Minutes of a public meeting held at Turumu Primary School, East...