The Summary Ejectment Act is short, old and used every week. It gives the District Court a quick remedy for a landowner or landlord, and the cases have spent forty years marking out exactly who can use it.
The Act
| Section | Who | Against whom |
|---|---|---|
| s 3 | A lessor | A lessee, or the actual occupier, who refuses to give up possession after the term has ended or been duly determined; a claim for rent or mesne profits up to K500 may be added |
| s 4 | A lessor | A lessee whose rent is in arrear for 10 days (weekly tenancy), 21 days (monthly), 30 days (quarterly) or 42 days (longer term up to three years); service of the summons stands in place of a demand or re-entry |
| s 5 | A lessor | Recovery of possession by the lessor generally |
| s 6 | A person entitled to possession | A person in possession without right, title or licence |
Section 2 provides that the Act does not apply to customary land. The complaint is made to a magistrate, who issues a summons; if the defendant does not appear or does not show reasonable cause, the Court orders possession to be delivered up immediately or by a named day; and if the order is not obeyed, a magistrate issues a warrant directing the police to enter, by force if necessary, and give possession within 30 days. Section 3(5) requires the complaint to be dismissed if the lessor does not appear. The Act is on PacLII.
Clear title only
Proceedings for recovery of possession of land under the Summary Ejectment Act are intended to provide a quick remedy to people who have a clear title to land or premises: they are not intended to be available where title to land is in dispute or unclear.
— Supreme Court, PGSC 3 (1984)
This links the Act to section 21(4)(f) of the District Courts Act, and Yandu v Waiyu (2005) N2894 supplies the test: a registered proprietor’s title is not bona fide in dispute unless someone has taken a distinct, formal, legal step to disturb it. A landlord with a State Lease or a registered freehold, and a registered proprietor facing squatters, has clear title. A person whose own claim to the land rests on a customary purchase, an unregistered transfer or a promise does not. See land disputes.
Occupiers with a licence or equitable interest
(1) The District Court can only issue an eviction order under section 6 against persons who have no right, title or licence to be in possession. (2) Descendants of contract labourers permitted to live on a plantation for eighty years had an equitable interest akin to a licence. (3) Their licence did not entitle them to stay forever, but only for a reasonable time and perhaps to be compensated before being required to leave. (4) As they had a licence, an essential precondition to a section 6 order was absent, and the order was quashed.
— Cannings J, PGNC 82 (2008)
Kikia v Solowet (2009) N3682 applied the same reasoning to a father who tried to use section 6 to evict his four sons from land they had lived on with his permission for many years: the sons had an equitable interest akin to a licence, and the order was quashed. The point is that section 6 is for trespassers. Family members, long-term settlers and former employees who were allowed to build there are not trespassers, and their removal requires reasonable notice and, the Court suggested, possibly compensation, in proceedings that can determine those rights, which means the National Court.
Tenants
Sections 3 and 4 are the landlord’s tools and are less controversial, because a tenant’s right to be there is defined by the lease. The rent arrears periods in section 4 are short, and the summons replaces any need for a formal demand. Section 10 protects the outgoing tenant’s rights in fixtures, section 11 allows a stay of execution on giving security, and section 12 gives relief to parties to a bond. Section 3(4) lets the landlord add a claim for rent or mesne profits, but only up to K500; a larger arrears claim must be brought as an ordinary complaint within the money limit.
Procedure and service
An ejectment complaint follows the ordinary District Court procedure: complaint, summons served at least 72 hours before the hearing under section 47, and a hearing at which the complainant proves title and the defendant’s want of right. In Philipae v Igaso (2011) N4366 an eviction order made without the defendant ever being served was quashed for breach of section 143 and denial of natural justice. Where the occupier has a family and has built on the land, the order should allow a realistic time to leave, and the warrant under section 3(3) gives the police up to 30 days.
Registered proprietors and the National Court
A registered proprietor who wants a declaration of title as well as possession, or who faces an occupier with an arguable equitable interest, may prefer the National Court, which can decide every issue in one proceeding; the Court in Yagon said as much. See ejectment against a registered proprietor and enforcing a judgment for possession.
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.