Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback National Court of Papua New Guinea

Erasi, Provincial Works Manager Goroka, Eastern Highlands Province v Independent State of Papua New Guinea [1999] PGNC 79; N1914 (6 September 1999)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1914

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

OS NO. 533 OF 1999
BETWEEN: LALIO ERASI, PROVINCIAL WORKS MANAGER GOROKA, EASTERN HIGHLANDS PROVINCE
- FIRST APPLICANT -
AND: THE INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA
- SECOND APPLICANT -
AND: VINCENT HATEFA
- FIRST RESPONDENT -
AND: NOSI MOTORS PTY LTD
- SECOND RESPONDENT -

Goroka

Kirriwom J
6 September 1999

Counsel

Mr B. Ovia for the Applicants

No appearance from the Respondents

RULING

6 September 1999

KIRRIWOM J: This is an application by the Department of Works, Eastern Highlands Province and the Independent State of Papua New Guinea seeking restraining orders against the First Respondent Vincent Hatefa and Nosi Motors Ltd, the Second Respondent over a portion of land in West Goroka where the Department of Works Civil Engineering section offices and stores are located. The land in question is described as Section 81 Allotment 1 Goroka.

The Works Department which had operated out of that land for many years with improvement on the land to the tune in excess of K600,000 - K700,000 suddenly found itself being locked out by the First Respondent claiming to be the owner of the property as the new title holder to the land.

The question as to how this situation has arisen without the applicants knowledge of revocation of their lease and grant to the Respondents of the same portion of land will be the subject of substantive proceedings to be filed for determination by the Court.

Meanwhile the Applicants are seeking restraining orders against the Respondents so that the assets on the land can be protected and preserved. I am concerned that a piece of land with substantial improvement on it with essential government services being carried out on the land must suddenly find itself being evicted by the Respondents who became the new owners unbeknown to the Plaintiff. How can this possible happen by a stroke of pen on a piece of paper. This case surely needs proper investigation.

I am satisfied on the materials filed in support of this application that there is real urgency for the orders sought to be granted in order to preserve the status quo and also the balance of convenience favours the applicants to continue in its operations of providing essential services to the public until the substantive issue is resolved.

In the circumstances I grant the orders sought in the Notice of Motion namely:-

1. ҈& T60; That that the First and Second Respondents and their servants and or agents are hereby restrained from entering the premises at section 81 Allotment 1, West Goroka.

2. ټ&##160; T60; That trat trst and Second Respondents ents and/or their affiliates or agents are hereby restrained from harassing the servants and or agents of pplicfrom performing their duties at Section 81 Allotmllotment 1ent 1, West Goroka.

3. ;ټ T60; That that the First and Second Respondents are hereby restrained from interfering with the activities of the Applicants at Section 81 Allotm, Wesoka uthe substantive issue on the forfeitureiture of T of Title or change of ownership of the sahe said land is properly determined by this Court.

4. &##160;; T60; That that the Applicants shall immediately file appropriate action to determine the issue of ownership of the said land.

Lawyer for the Applicants: Solicitor General

Lawyer for the Respondents: No appearance