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

Steamship Ltd v Papua New Guinea National Land Board [2021] PGNC 413; N9145 (14 September 2021)

N9145

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]
OS (JR) NO. 756 OF 2009

BETWEEN:
STEAMSHIP LTD
Plaintiff

AND:
PAPUA NEW GUINEA NATIONAL LAND BOARD
First Defendant

AND:
THE MINISTER FOR LANDS & PHYSICAL PLANNING
Second Defendant

AND:
THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LANDS & PHYSICAL PLANNING
Third Defendant

AND:
SAM MASUAMAN TASION
Fourth Defendant

AND:
T.G HOLDINGS LTD
Fifth Defendant

Waigani: Miviri J
2021: 14^th September

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Originating Summons – Application Entry of Judgement – Certified & Taxed Costs – Discretionary – Whether sufficient Grounds demonstrated – Order 22 Rule 62 Motion for entry of – Evidence of Service on Defendants – Motion Granted – Certified Costs converted to Judgment Order – Cost follow event.

Cases cited:

Kaiulo v Yaluma [2008] PGNC 157; N3507

Abai v The State [1998] PGNC 92; N1762

Patterson trading as Pattersons Lawyers v Teachers Savings and Loans Ltd [2004] PGNC 243; N2516

Kotape v McConnell Dowell Construction PNG Ltd (Company No 1-123873) [2019] PGNC 473; N8338

Oil Search (PNG) Ltd v Upke [2018] PGNC 527; N7657
Counsel:

J. Nigs, for Plaintiff
No appearance for Defendants

RULING

14^th September, 2021

1. MIVIRI, J: This is the ruling on the Notice of Motion of the plaintiff seeking entry of Judgment on the certified costs of K 191, 662.70 determined on the 24^th December 2019 but certification made on the 13^th January 2020.
   
2. It was served on the defendants, first defendant on the 07^th February 2020. Also on the same date on the second and third defendants. The fourth defendant was earlier on the 06^th February 2020 including the fifth defendant. The Office of the Solicitor General was also effected on that date.
   
3. No review has been filed by each of the defendants after service and the 14 days by the rules would have lapsed since because today 14^th September 2021 application has been moved to convert that certified taxed cost of K 191, 662.70 into a Judgement order. And the plaintiff invokes the provisions of Order 22 Rule 62 and Order 12 Rule 1 in so applying. That it be severally on the taxed certified cost of the 13^th January 2020 in the sum set out above.
   
4. He prays for the costs incidental also to this application, and entry of abridgment to the date of settlement by the Registrar which shall take place forthwith.
   
5. This is the culmination of the proceedings started since 04^th December 2009 by originating summons seeking leave for judicial review by order 16 rule 1 & 3 of the National Court Rules. The challenge was to the decisions concerning all that piece of land contained in Allotment 2 Section 387 Hohola, Port Moresby National Capital District described as State Lease volume 11 Folio 2551. This court presided by Justice Davani granted leave on the 18^th December 2009. And the substantive matter was heard by Justice David on the 13^th April 2012 and on the 28^th March 2014 handed down the final decision granting the application for judicial review and ordering the costs against all the defendants on a party/party basis.
   
6. Application for taxation was filed 30^th August 2019 and it eventuated in November and December 2019 and from that was K 276, 076.60 was reduced on taxation to K 191, 662.70. which has been served on the defendants particulars set out above. All have not responded disputing and make no appearance on the application to enter is a Judgemental debt or order.
   
7. It is clear following and adopting what this court said in Kaiulo v Yaluma [2008] PGNC 157; N3507 (27 October 2008) there is conclusive evidence of default in the payment of the costs by the State Defendants. Because the costs have been certified which is conclusive evidence of liability on the part of the defendants. It has not been reviewed Abai v The State [1998] PGNC 92; N1762 (24 September 1998), nor has it been challenged by the rules. Time within has lapsed on the part of the defendants no leave has been filed to open outside the time limitation by the Rules. And this application is way outside the 14 days called. And would be fair to see out what is due from the proceedings properly set out and settled in taxation which has now being certified.
   
8. There is merit demonstrated for the discretion of the Court as in Patterson trading as Pattersons Lawyers v Teachers Savings and Loans Ltd [2004] PGNC 243; N2516 (19 February 2004), to grant the plea made for Judgement to be entered.
   
9. And it is a well-trodden path that his Court has walked in Kotape v McConnell Dowell Construction PNG Ltd (Company No 1-123873) [2019] PGNC 473; N8338 (27 November 2019) and Oil Search (PNG) Ltd v Upke [2018] PGNC 527; N7657 (20 March 2018), which is the way that the discretion of the Court will be exercised here.
   
10. The motion of the Plaintiff for entry of Judgement on the certified taxed Costs of K 191, 662.70 is granted as prayed because of the reasons set out above.
    
11. Accordingly, the formal orders of the Court are:
    
    • (i) Pursuant to Order 22 Rule 62 the taxed certified costs in the sum of K191, 662.70 is converted to a Judgement Order of this Court in favour of the plaintiff.
    • (ii) The plaintiffs Costs here will be paid by the defendants.
    • (iii) Time for entry of these orders is abridged to the date of settlement by the Registrar which shall take place forthwith.

Orders Accordingly.

__________________________________________________________________

Denton PNG: Lawyer for the Plaintiff/Applicant

Office of the Solicitor General: Lawyer for First Defendants