Papua and New Guinea v Blasius Tirupia

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 01 July 1971

Papua and New Guinea, Supreme Court.

(Minogue C.J., Clarkson and Kelly JJ.)

The Administration Of The Territory Of Papua And New Guinea

and

Blasius Tirupia And Others In Re Vunapaladig And Japalik Land

States as International persons Composite and dependent States and territories Mandated and trust territories Rights and duties of the administering authority Rights conferred on persons by a mandate Whether enforceable In the municipal courts Acquisition of control of the mandated territory Whether an act of State Territory of New Guinea Mandate to Commonwealth of Australia Whether any legal or equitable duties imposed on the administering authority as a matter of law Power of the administering authority to Introduce a system of land title by registration Whether any duty on the administering authority to protect native land rights Whether native land rights inalienable The law of Papua and New Guinea

Summary: The facts:In 1920 a mandate was granted to the Commonwealth of Australia in respect of the Territory of New Guinea. From 1924 to 1969 a number of Lands Registration Ordinances were enacted, the effect of which was to confer an indefeasible legal title to land on the registered owner. The plaintiff claimed ownership of certain lands and the consequential relief of an injunction or possession, whichever was appropriate, on the basis of being a bona fide purchaser for value without notice from a registered owner. The defendants claimed a legal interest in the lands on the basis of native land rights and title immemorial. The defendants contended, inter alia, that the mandate reserved their native land rights and imposed a duty on the plaintiff administering authority to protect those rights which were in effect inalienable.

Held:The contention of the defendants would be rejected. The acquisition of control of a territory by a mandate was an Act of State and any rights conferred by a mandate were not enforceable in the municipal courts. Further, the mandate made no reference to native land rights and did not impose any duty on the plaintiff.

The following is the text of the relevant part of the judgment of the Court:

The Court [After referring to the matters set out above their Honours continued:]

The substance of the plaintiff's case is that the subject lands were lands brought under the Lands Registration Ordinance; that final orders were made under the restoration legislation and certificates of title issued; that the plaintiff was a purchaser who became a registered proprietor by transfer; that it was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of any other right title or interest and that consequently it was entitled to the relief sought, either an injunction on the footing that it was in possession of the lands or, alternatively, to what in effect was an order of ejectment if the plaintiff was not in possession.

As we understand the defendants' case they rely on a legal interest flowing directly from...