More District Court civil complaints founder on this rock than on any other. The Act keeps the Court out of land title disputes, and the cases explain where the line falls.
The exclusion
A Court has no jurisdiction when the title to land is bona fide in dispute.
The words are “bona fide in dispute”, not “in dispute”. A defendant cannot oust the Court merely by asserting that the land is his. The question is whether there is a genuine dispute about title, and the National Court has given a test for answering it.
The test in Yandu v Waiyu
(1) The District Court has no jurisdiction in cases where the title to land is bona fide in dispute. (2) If the registered proprietor of a State Lease commences proceedings in the District Court to enforce their interest in land there is no bona fide dispute about title unless some other person demonstrates that they have taken some distinct, formal, legal step to disturb that title. (3) Proceedings under the Summary Ejectment Act are intended to provide a quick remedy to people who have a clear title to premises. (4) Where no formal step had been taken to disturb the registered title, there was no bona fide dispute and the District Court could make orders under the Summary Ejectment Act.
— Cannings J, PGNC 66 (2005)
The appellants were brothers living on an oil palm block near Kimbe whose sister had obtained the transfer of their late father’s title into her name and then sought to evict them. Their appeal failed because, although they disputed her entitlement, they had taken no formal step, such as National Court proceedings to set aside the transfer, to disturb the registered title. Siwi v Mathew (2006) N3048 applied the same test to freehold land, holding that registration under the Land Registration Act gave the respondent a title that the appellant’s bare claim that the land was customary did not put bona fide in dispute.
What counts as a formal step
| Bona fide dispute | Not a bona fide dispute |
|---|---|
| National Court proceedings on foot to set aside the transfer or cancel the lease for fraud | An assertion in the District Court that the transfer was obtained unfairly |
| A caveat lodged on the title | A family arrangement or a promise that the land would be shared |
| A pending application to the Land Board or a challenge to the grant of the lease | Long occupation by itself, though it may create a licence that defeats summary ejectment |
| Two competing registered titles over the same land | A claim that the land is customary, where a registered freehold or State Lease exists (Siwi) |
| A Local Land Court dispute over the ownership of customary land | — |
Customary land
Disputes about who owns customary land are decided by the Local and Provincial Land Courts under the Land Disputes Settlement Act, not by the District Court, and section 2 of the Summary Ejectment Act provides that that Act does not apply to customary land. A District Court asked to evict someone from customary land, or to award damages that depend on who owns it, is being asked to decide title and must decline. See how customary land disputes are decided.
Summary ejectment
Where title is clear, the District Court is the forum for recovering possession. The Summary Ejectment Act lets a lessor recover premises from a tenant whose term has ended or whose rent is in arrear (sections 3 to 5), and lets a person with clear title recover premises held without right (section 6). Gawi v PNG Ready Mixed Concrete [1984] PNGLR 74 is the Supreme Court’s statement that these proceedings are for people with clear title and not for cases where title is in dispute or unclear. See summary ejectment.
Title claims in disguise
In Ngan v Yai (2016) N6381 a complaint sought restraining orders over unregistered land at Erima, framed as equitable relief under section 22. The magistrate dismissed it as an abuse of process because its true nature was a claim to title, and Makail J upheld that on appeal. The ancillary jurisdiction operates only on a cause of action already within jurisdiction. A claimant whose real complaint is “this land is mine” must go to the National Court, or to the Land Courts if the land is customary.
What the District Court can still do about land
Within its jurisdiction the Court can order a tenant to pay rent or a trespasser to pay damages, evict under the Summary Ejectment Act where title is clear, restrain interference with quiet enjoyment as between landlord and tenant, and, once the 2009 amendment commences, do so for larger sums. What it must not do is decide, even incidentally, who owns the land when that is genuinely contested. The Manual reminds magistrates that section 9’s presumption of jurisdiction does not excuse them from checking. A magistrate who hears a title dispute acts outside the Act, and the order will be quashed on appeal under section 230.
The District Courts Act is not on PacLII; it is available on vLex.
Before relying on anything here, read the current text of the District Courts Act (Chapter 40) and check for later amendments. The Act is not on PacLII; the figures and time limits quoted in this series come from the consolidation to No 8 of 2000, and the District Courts (Amendment) Act 2009 changes some of them once it is brought into operation. If a decision matters to you, get advice — start with the Office of the Public Solicitor, or find a firm in the law firms directory.