PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Papua New Guinea District Court

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> Papua New Guinea District Court >> 2003 >> [2003] PGDC 30

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

Sisipa v Dominic [2003] PGDC 30; DC390 (13 February 2003)

DC390


PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]


CASE NO 980 OF 2002


Andy Sisipa
Plaintiff


V


Peter Dominic
Respondent


Goroka: 10th, 17th, 20th January
13th February 2003


JUDGMENT


Gerard Majella Vetuna Wa. (Coram). This is a Summons upon Complaint under Section 6 Summary Ejectment Act Seeking, to eject the respondent from the institution house he occupies at the Bihute Corrective Institution in Goroka. The facts of the Case are such that the respondent was in the first place told to occupy the said house by the Commanding authority of Bihute Correctional Institution.


The Commanding Officer Superintendent Andy Sisipa claimed the respondent was informed to live in the house only as a temporary tenant pending the arrival of a Sergeant who was to transfer from Boram Corrective Institution. The respondent claimed he was not informed of the temporary Status of the tenancy. Now the Sergeant has arrived from Boram the CIS want to eject the respondent so that the Sergeant could occupy the said house.


The respondent is refusing to vacate the house against instruction given to him twice by the Commanding Officer of Bihute Correctional Institution.


Section 6 Summary Ejectment Act States:


(1) Where a person without right, title or licence is in possession of premises, the owner may make a Complaint to a Magistrate of a District Court to recover possession of the premises, and the Magistrate may issue a Summons in the prescribed form to the person in illegal occupation,


(2) Where the person Summoned under Subsection (1)-


(a) does not appear before the District Court at the time named in the Summons,


(b) appears and does not show reasonable Course why possession. of the premises should not be given, the Court may, on proof of the matter of the Complaint, issue a Warrant directed to a member of the Police Force requiring him on or before a day specified in the Warrant


(c) to enter, by force and with assistants if necessary, into the premises; and


(d) to give possession of the premises to the Complaint.


The issue before this Court is whether or not the respondent has a right to occupy the house. The respondent is a Correctional, non-Commissioned officer who is employed under the Correctional Services Act 1995. The parties are members of a disciplinary force and are required to conduct themselves as members of such a force under the Correctional Services Act 1995.


Section 69 C.I. Act says:


(1) A member shall obey promptly all instructions given to him by any member under whose control or supervision he is placed.


So the defendant is bound to obey the direction given by the Commanding Officer for him to vacate the house. However if defendant has any reason to object to such a direction.


Subsection (2) says:


Where a member considers that he has any ground for Complaint arising out of an instruction given to him or from any other cause, he may through the immediate Supervisor appeal to the Commissioner, who shall consider the appeal and advice the member of his decision.


Section 69 (3) says:


A member in a Supervisory Capacity receiving an appeal under -- Subsection (2) shall forward the appeal immediately and without delay through the Chain of Command.


So it can be seen that the defendant should have appealed to the Commissioner if he disagreed with the Commanding officers direction. His appeal should be immediately forwarded for consideration.


Subsection (4) says:


Whether or not he has appealed or intends to appeal, under this section a member shall, as far as practicable, obey any instruction that is given to him until it is Countermanded by a Competent Jurisdiction.


The defendant then is bound to obey the direction to vacate the house.


Any such disobedience should be dealt with under the C.I.A where the Commanding Officer could lay disciplinary Charge against the defendant. Coming back to the main issue this Court can not answer the question because it is not appropriate for the parties as members of a disciplinary force to evade the duties and powers to deal with the dispute under the Correctional Service Act, by coming to Court.


The Commanding Officer should invoke the powers and procedure under the Correctional Service Act to deal with this dispute.


Therefore, on that basis this Case be Withdrawn.


In Person: Complainant
In Person: Defendant


PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/pg/cases/PGDC/2003/30.html