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

Ande v The Estate of the Late Anson Isingi [2026] PGNC 52; N11726 (5 March 2026)

N11726

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]
OS 93 OF 2025

LUCY ANDE
Plaintiff

v

THE ESTATE OF THE LATE ANSON ISINGI
First Defendant

GRACE ISINGI
Second Defendant

WABAG: ELLIS J
28 NOVEMBER 2025; 5 MARCH 2026

CLAIM AGAINST ESTATE – Plaintiff claiming to be a creditor of first defendant – search revealed proceedings against deceased dismissed for want of prosecution – no basis for claim against estate – these proceedings dismissed

Cases cited

Ande v Isingi & National Housing Corporation (2010) OS 289 of 2010 (unreported)

Ande v Isingi & National Housing Corporation (2025) WS 289 of 2014 (unreported)

Isingi v Ande & National Housing Corporation (2014) SCA 174 of 2010 (unreported)

Counsel
Lucy Ande, the plaintiff, in person
G Isingi for the first defendant
Grace Isingi, the second defendant, in person

JUDGMENT

1. ELLIS J: These reasons have been prepared so that the self-represented litigants will understand the outcome of these proceedings and the reasons for that outcome.
   

History of these and prior proceedings

2. On 5 June 2009 Lucy Ande filed an Originating Summons against Anson Isingi and the National Housing Corporation, challenging the land title which Anson Isingi obtained from National Housing Corporation.
   
3. On 8 November 2010 the National Court in Wabag published a decision which included the following findings of fact:
   
   • (1) The Plaintiff has worked as a nurse since 1972.
   • (2) On 16 November 1988 the Second Defendant acquired a State lease of the Property for 99 years from 20 February 1986.
   • (3) The Plaintiff has occupied the Property and paid fortnightly rent to the Second Defendant since February 1993.
   • (4) At all times since February 1993 the Plaintiff has been a legal tenant, residing in the Property.
   • (5) As a result of that tenancy, the Plaintiff was eligible to purchase the Property under the Give Away Scheme (GAS).
   • (6) The Plaintiff completed an application form and, at the request of the Second Defendant, obtained a valuation of the Property.
   • (7) As at 13 August 1996 the market value of the Property was K23,700.
   • (8) On 7 April 1999 the First Defendant obtained title to the Property from the Second Defendant for a price of K1,067.
   • (9) That title was obtained by fraud.
   • (10) On 20 May 1999 the Second Defendant’s Regional Housing Manager instructed its Manager in Wabag to process the Plaintiff’s GAS application.
   • (11) On 1 June 1999, contrary to that instruction, that Manager wrote to the Plaintiff supporting the First Defendant’s title to the Property.
   • (12) On 30 May 2000 the First Defendant obtained, from the Wabag District Court, an order for ejectment of the Plaintiff from the property.
   • (13) The Plaintiff’s appeal to the National Court from that decision was dismissed for want of prosecution on 20 April 2009.
   • (14) In neither the District Court proceedings nor in the appeal to the National Court was the allegation of fraud considered and determined.
     
4. A finding that there had been fraud was based on the following matters:
   
   • (1) The purchase price being substantially less than the market value.
   • (2) The lack of supporting documents from the First Defendant.
   • (3) The defects in the documents produced by the First Defendant.
   • (4) The absence of explanations from the First Defendant beyond annexing documents.
   • (5) The failure of the First Defendant to attend the court for cross-examination.
   • (6) The support which the First Defendant obtained locally from persons such as the Second Defendant’s Manager in Wabag.
   • (7) That such support from that Manager was contrary to instructions from his superior, namely the Second Defendant’s Regional Housing Manager in Goroka.
   • (8) The instruction of the Director of the Second Defendant’s Highlands Business Unit, set out in a letter dated 25 July 2000, has not been followed by the First Defendant which suggests he is not prepared to have the title he claims to have obtained from the Second Defendant scrutinised by the Second Defendant.
     
5. As a result, the following orders were made, on 8 November 2010:
   
   • (1) Declare that the sale and transfer of the property described as Allotment 10, Section 23, Wabag in Enga Province by the Second Defendant to the First Defendant was obtained by fraud.
   • (2) Declare that contract for sale and the resulting transfer to be null and void.
   • (3) Order that the Second Defendant deliver to the Plaintiff a contract for sale and transfer instrument for the purpose of facilitating the sale of that property to the Plaintiff for the price of K23.700.
   • (4) The First Defendant, his servants, agents, friends and family members are restrained from (1) entering that property, (2) interfering with the Plaintiff’s possession of that property, (3) threatening, intimidating or harassing the Plaintiff.
   • (5) Grant leave to the Plaintiff to initiate proceedings for contempt in the event of non-compliance with these orders.
   • (6) The First Defendant is to pay the Plaintiff’s costs,
   • (7) The First Defendant is to pay the Second Defendant’s costs.
   • (8) Time is abridged so that these orders may be entered forthwith.
     
6. However, on 4 July 2014, the Supreme Court set aside those orders on the basis that the proceedings should have been commenced by a Writ of Summons and not by an Originating Summons.
   
7. Being entitled to commence fresh proceedings, on 18 September 2014 Lucy Ande filed a Writ of Summons, in the National Court in Waigani.
   
8. On 28 July 2015 the following orders were made against the National Housing Corporation:
   
   • (1) Application is granted and default judgment is entered against the Second Respondent since there is no notice of intention to defend and Defence.
   • (2) Trial on Assessment of Damages to be conducted at a later date.
   • (3) Costs of this application to be paid by the Second Respondent (sic).
     
9. On 20 March 2025, more than ten years after the Writ of Summons was filed, the following orders were made:
   
   • (1) Proceedings dismissed for want of prosecution.
   • (2) File to be closed and archived forthwith.
     
10. It appears that Anson Isingi died, intestate, on 6 August 2021.
    
11. On 8 May 2025 the Plaintiff commenced these proceedings, seeking the following orders:
    
    • (1) Pursuant to Order 19 Rules 31(1), 31(4) and 33 of the National Court Rules, the Plaintiff Applicant be granted leave to apply for [a] Letter of Administration as a Creditor of the Estate f the Late Anson Isingi of Pipi Village, Wabag, Self-employed, who died intestate on 6^th August, 2021.
    • (2) Any other Orders Deem[ed] Fit by the Court.
      
12. These proceedings were dismissed on 3 October 2025 as there was no appearance by or for the Plaintiff on that occasion. However, on 25 November 2025, the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Motion and affidavit in support which explained her non-attendance on 3 October 2025.
    
13. After reinstating the proceedings, since the Plaintiff had provided a sufficient explanation for her non-attendance on 3 October 2025, the Court heard from both the Plaintiff and the Grace Isingi, the wife of the late Anson Isingi. As those submissions raised a question of what orders had been made in the second proceedings in the National Court, the hearing was adjourned so that the Court could obtain either the file for those proceedings or a copy of the documents on that file. It was also noted that there were proceedings in the District Court, not yet finalised, in which Grace Isingi sought to evicted Lucy Ande from the property.
    
14. It was in those circumstances that the following orders were made on 28 November 2025:
    
    • (1) The orders made on 3 October 2025, dismissing these proceedings due to the non-appearance of the applicant, are set aside as she has provided a sufficient explanation for her non-attendance on that occasion.
    • (2) Grace Isingi is added as a defendant, she being the wife of the first defendant in the original proceedings, he being now deceased.
    • (3) These proceedings are adjourned to a date to be advised to the parties, Lucy Ande (elizdominicwbg@gmail.com) and Grace Isingi (graceyopo77@gmail.com), using those email addresses.
    • (4) The Court will, as soon as possible, ascertain the position in relation to the National Court proceedings with the reference WS 1135 of 2014, being proceedings that were commenced in Waigani.
    • (5) The pending District Court proceedings between Grace Isingi as plaintiff and Lucy Ande as defendant, being the proceedings commenced by a Complaint dated 22 January 2024, are stayed until there is a further of this Court in relation to those proceedings.
    • (6) Time is abridged so that these orders may be entered forthwith.
      

Consideration

15. As the original orders, made by the National Court on 8 November 2010, were set aside by the Supreme Court, on 4 July 2014, it is only the orders made in the National Court proceedings commenced in Waigani on 18 September 2014 that are relevant. Since those proceedings were dismissed for want of prosecution, on 20 March 2025, Lucy Ande cannot be considered a creditor of the estate of the late Anson Isingi. It must follow that these proceedings must be dismissed, despite there having been clear evidence that the late Anson Isingi fraudulently obtained title to the property still occupied by Lucy Ande.
    
16. While Lucy Ande did obtain judgement against the National Housing Corporation, on 28 July 2015, with damages to be assessed at a late date, that is not a matter relevant to these proceedings. Lucy Ande may wish to obtain legal advice in relation to the status of that judgement, having regard to the 20 March 2025 dismissal of the proceedings for want of prosecution in response to a motion that was brought only by Anson Isingi and not by the National Housing Corporation.
    
17. This appears to be a case where the ability of the Court to deliver justice was prevented by delays by Lucy Ande and/or her lawyer. As was said more than 400 years ago by Shakespeare, in Henry VI, Part 1, Act 3, scene 2: “Defer no time; delays have dangerous ends.”
    

Costs

18. Since Lucy Ande and Grace Isingi were self-represented, the appropriate order in relation to the costs of these proceedings is that each party is to pay their own costs.
    

Orders

19. For the reasons set out above, the Court makes the following orders:
    
    1. The Originating Summons is dismissed.
    2. The stay order made on 28 November 2025 in relation to District Court proceedings by the Second Defendant against the Plaintiff is lifted, with the result that those proceedings may now continue.
    3. Each party is to pay their own costs of these proceedings.
    4. Time is abridged so that these orders may be entered forthwith.

Orders Accordingly.

__________________________________________________________________