Sam Samoua for and on behalf of himself and 14 Labourers of Milinat Plantation v Aces Venture Limited (2013) N5325

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Court: National Court
• Date: 16 August 2013
• Citation: (2013) N5325
• Docket Number: WS NO 674 OF 2011
• Year: 2013

Full Title: WS NO 674 OF 2011;Sam Samoua for and on behalf of himself and 14 Labourers of Milinat Plantation v Aces Venture Limited (2013) N5325

National Court: Cannings J

Judgment Delivered: 16 August 2013

TORTS—trespass to property—whether defendant authorised police to set fire to plaintiffs’ houses and chattels and destroy food crops

The plaintiffs claimed damages against the defendant for unlawful destruction by Police of their property and for inhuman treatment by the Police. They claimed that they had for 23 years been living and working as labourers on a plantation and that when the defendant took over the plantation it engaged the Police as its agent who without notice or warning or a court order authorising such conduct entered the area in which they were living and burned down their houses, thereby damaging or destroying their personal property, and destroyed their food gardens. The defendant denied liability on the grounds that the plaintiffs’ statement of claim did not disclose any cause of action and that it did not give any orders to the police to execute unlawful eviction of the plaintiffs and that most of the plaintiffs had decided to voluntarily vacate the plantation and it gave them money in good faith to assist them in doing so. A trial was held to determine whether the defendant was liable.

Held:

(1) The statement of claim was not clearly pleaded but nor was it so vague as to fail entirely to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

(2) The statement of claim could fairly be regarded as pleading a cause of action in the tort of trespass to property, the elements of which are:

(a) the defendant interfered with (eg by damaging or destroying)

(b) the plaintiff’s chattels (any property other than freehold land)

(c) the defendant acted intentionally;

(d) the defendant acted without lawful authority; and

(e) the plaintiff had actual possession of the chattels.

(3) Though there was no direct evidence that the defendant engaged the Police to conduct the eviction exercise, there was circumstantial evidence to that effect and the defendant failed to give evidence in support of its denial that it had engaged the Police or to counter the plaintiffs’ evidence that the eviction exercise took place without notice or warning or a court order authorising it. The only reasonable inference was that the defendant had engaged the Police and a finding of fact to that effect was made.

(4) As to the elements of the tort of trespass to property the Court found: that by engaging the Police and authorising them to evict the plaintiffs, the defendant (a) damaged or destroyed the plaintiffs’ property, comprising (b) houses, personal property and food gardens and that (c) the defendant (and the Police) acted intentionally and (d) without lawful authority (no notice or warning being given to the plaintiffs and no court order being in place to authorise the exercise, which resulted in damage to or destruction of property of which the plaintiffs had (e) actual possession.

(5) Four of the 15 plaintiffs established a cause of action in trespass in respect of three types of property: houses, personal property (in or in the vicinity of the houses) and food gardens. Claims for other causes of action and other types of property were rejected. There was no evidence by 11 plaintiffs, so there was no judgment in their favour.

Cases cited

No cases are cited in the judgment:

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

This was a trial on liability.

1. CANNINGS J: The plaintiffs, Sam Samoua and 14 others, have commenced proceedings against the defendant...