David Hill v Janelle Vera Hill, by her Next Friend, Agnes Watson and Agnes Watson (2012) N4728

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Court: National Court
• Date: 22 June 2012
• Citation: (2012) N4728
• Docket Number: CIA NO 104 of 2011
• Year: 2012

Full Title: CIA NO 104 of 2011; David Hill v Janelle Vera Hill, by her Next Friend, Agnes Watson and Agnes Watson (2012) N4728

National Court: Cannings J

Judgment Delivered: 22 June 2012

COURTS AND ORDERS—District Court—power to declare existence of customary marriage—jurisdiction in land matters involving bona fide dispute as to title—power to order transfer of title—power to order costs on solicitor-client basis.

In determining proceedings commenced by the appellant under the Summary Ejectment Act, seeking eviction of the second respondent from land of which the appellant was the sole registered proprietor, the District Court ordered that: there was a customary marriage between the appellant and the second respondent, the ejectment proceedings were dismissed, the appellant shall transfer his interest in the land in such a way that the second respondent becomes joint tenant of the land and the appellant shall pay costs to the second respondent on a solicitor-client basis. The appellant appealed against the order on eight grounds, arguing that the District Court erred by (1) declaring the existence of a customary marriage without proper pleading or evidence; (2) and (3) making orders regarding land in respect of which there was a bona fide dispute as to title, contrary to s21(1)(f) of the District Courts Act; (4) awarding costs on a solicitor-client basis without jurisdiction (5): basing the order as to transfer of land on s94 of the Child Welfare Act; (6) basing the order as to transfer of land on s22 and s23 of the Deserted Wives and Children Act; (7) basing the order as to transfer of land on the National Goals and Directive Principles, which are non-justiciable; and (8) failing to provide reasons for its decision.

Held:

(1) Ground (1) was upheld as the existence of custom relied upon to base the declaration of a customary marriage was neither pleaded nor supported by credible evidence.

(2) Grounds (2) and (3) were upheld as there was a bona fide dispute as to title to land, a matter which is excluded from the jurisdiction of the District Court by the District Courts Act, s21(1)(f).

(3) Ground (4) was dismissed as the provision of the District Courts Act, s260, which confers power to award costs does not prevent the District Court awarding costs on a solicitor-client basis.

(4) Ground (5) was dismissed as the District Court was having regard to the requirements of s94 of the Child Welfare Act, and not relying on that provision as a source of jurisdiction.

(5) Ground (6) was dismissed as the District Court was having regard to the requirements of s22 and s23 of the Deserted Wives and Children Act, and not relying on those provisions as a source of jurisdiction.

(6) Ground (7) was dismissed as the District Court was having regard to the National Goals and Directive Principles, and not relying on them as a source of jurisdiction; and in any event it is not correct to state as a blanket proposition that they are non-justiciable.

(7) Ground (8) was upheld as the District Court was obliged to provide reasons for its decision and its failure to do so meant that it failed to act judicially, in excess...