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

Andama v Niningi [2021] PGNC 218; N8933 (12 July 2021)

N8933

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]
OS (IECMS) (JR) NO. 11 OF 2020

BETWEEN:
PETER LANGA ANDAMA AS CHAIRMAN OF THE NORTH KOROBA LOCAL LEVEL GOVERNMENT JUHA SPECIAL PURPOSES AUTHORITY
First Plaintiff

AND:
ALEX ARABIA AS TREASURER OF THE NORTH KOROBA LOCAL LEVEL GOVERNMENT JUHA SPECIAL PURPOSES AUTHORITY
Second Plaintiff

AND:
HONOURABLE PILA NININGI THE MINISTER FOR INTER GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
First Defendant

AND:
THE INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA
Second Defendant

AND:
BEN ANUBI HEROWA AS ACTING CHAIRMAN OF NORTH KOROBA LOCAL LEVEL GOVERNMENT JUHA SPECIAL PURPOSE AUTHORITY (JSPA)
Third Defendant

Waigani: Miviri J
2021: 18^th February 11^th March, 12^th July

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Judicial Review & appeals – Amended Notice of Motion – Leave to amend Statement Order 16 Rule 3 (2)(a) NCR – Judgement in Related Proceedings – Facts Circumstances same – Leave to discontinue present proceeding – Granted – No Utility to maintain present action – Proceedings discontinued – each party to meet own cost.

Cases Cited:

Papua Club Inc v Nusaum Holdings Ltd [2002] PGNC 50; N2273

Counsel:

A. Kumbari & S. Dadada, for Plaintiff
J. Kolo & Sumba, for Defendants
E. Geita, for State

RULING

12^th July, 2021

1. MIVIRI, J: This is the ruling on the Plaintiff’s Amended Notice of Motion of the 27^th November 2020 for leave to amend the statement under Order 16 Rule 6 (2) of the National Court Rules. He also seeks under Order 13 Rule 13 of the National Court Rules.
   
2. The amendment was sought of the statement and by way of motion as set out above. Leave for Judicial review was granted on the 03^rd July 2020. The issue was whether or not the amendments intended and sought will address the real issues posed by the action filed. Because initial leave was sought and obtained on the statement as filed. It was on the basis of that pleading: Papua Club Inc v Nusaum Holdings Ltd [2002] PGNC 50; N2273 (16 August 2002). The application relied in support on the affidavit of Paul Pori Yange sworn and filed of the 15^th July 2020 which included the draft amendment intended statement.
   
3. Whilst the application was pending ruling this Court in a related proceeding, presided by Justice Cannings, delivered judgement on the 1^st July 2021 in OS No. 08 of 2020 Ben Anumbi Herowa Deputy Chairman Juha Special Purposes Authority v Peter Langa Andama Chairman Juha Special Purposes Authority (1^st Defendant) & Alex Arabia, Treasurer Juha Special Purposes Authority (2^nd Defendant) & Hon Pila Niningi MP Minister for Inter-Governmental Relations (3^rd Defendant) & Dickson Guina Secretary Department of Inter Government Relations (4^th Defendant) & Hon Kerenga Kua MP Minister for Petroleum & Energy (5^th Defendant) & David Manau Secretary Department of Petroleum & Energy (6^th Defendant) & The Independent State of Papua New Guinea, dismissed the proceedings. In so doing it made the following orders; (1) The Relief Sought in the amended Originating Summons filed 13^th October 2020 is refused and the proceedings are dismissed. (2) The plaintiff shall pay the First and Second defendants’ costs of the proceedings on a party party basis, which shall if not agreed be taxed. (3) The file is closed.
   
4. That order was made on the 01^st July 2021 and entered on the 06^th July 2021.
   
5. What is underpinning is that its facts, circumstances and evidence is the same as with OS JR 11 of 2020 this present judicial review proceedings for which application has been sought set out above. The issues raised are the same and have been addressed by this Court presided by Justice Cannings. It means for all intent and purposes this court has deliberated and determined the dispute and handed a decision. The proceeding has been for intent and purposes concluded with the file closed. Issues that originate here have seen the hand of Justice by this Court presided by Justice Cannings. The amendment that was sought there and related issues from it have been addressed and it is not necessary to maintain this proceedings as it is.
   
6. And so, the application for leave to withdrew, the proceedings emanating from Order 8 Rule 61 of the Rules of Court is granted. It would also be in similar mode by Order 16 Rule 13 (13) (2) (b) (i) & (ii) of the NCR particularly to Judicial review proceedings. Leave is granted to the plaintiff to withdraw this proceedings. Each Party will meet their own costs.
   
7. The formal orders of the Court are:
   
   • (1) Leave is granted pursuant to Order 8 Rule 61 NCR for discontinuation of the proceeding.
   • (2) Each Party will bear their own costs.
     

Orders Accordingly.

__________________________________________________________________

Kumbari & Associate Lawyers: Lawyer for the Plaintiff/Applicant

Coomers Lawyers: Lawyer for the Defendants