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

Lyangao v Paranda [2022] PGNC 411; N9865 (31 August 2022)

N9865

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

OS NO. 116 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

TAKA LYANGAO

- Plaintiff-

AND:

ANGELINE PARANDA,

ACTING DIRECTOR

LEGAL TRAINING INSTITUTE

-First Defendant-

AND:

SIR GIBUMA GIBBS SALIKA,

CHAIRMAN,

LEGAL TRAINING INSTITUTE

-Second Defendant-

AND:

LEGAL TRAINING INSTITUTE

-Second Defendant-

Waigani: Tamade AJ

2022: 12^th July, 31^st August

JUDGMENT – requirements for acceptance into the Legal Training Institute not met – Section 16 (2) of the Post Graduate Legal Training Act – misapplication of Constitutional provisions and Section 25 of the Lawyers Act – erroneously applied – orders sought in pleadings not realistic – ill-informed litigant – frivolous and vexatious proceedings – proceedings dismissed.

Legislation:

Post-graduate Legal Training Act 1972

Counsel:

Mr Taka Lyangao, Plaintiff in Person

31^st August, 2022

1. TAMADE AJ: The Plaintiff essentially seeks the following orders as per his Amended Originating Summons filed on 9 August 2021:

1. A declaration pursuant to the National Goals and Directive Principles, Goal number one; Integral Human Development, clause 2 of the Preamble to the Constitution, sections 39(3)(a) and section 48(1) of the Constitution, that the Plaintiff be admitted to train as a lawyer to Legal Training Institute in 2021 academic year.
2. A declaration pursuant to section 25(2)(a) of the Lawyers Act 1986 as amended that the Plaintiff’s denial to admission to Legal Training Institute since 2010 is a violation of section 48(1) of the Constitution as amended.
3. An order pursuant to section 25(2)(a) of the Lawyers Act 1986 as amended and based on the GPA of 2.52 from the UPNG Academic Transcript, the Defendants be ordered to accept the Plaintiff to train as a lawyer in 2021.
4. An order pursuant to section 25(1) of the Lawyers Act 1986 as amended that the Defendants be ordered to admit the Plaintiff as a trainee lawyer to the Third Defendant institution for practice qualification.
5. The cost of these proceedings from 2010 to the conclusion of this matter be met by the Defendants.
6. Further or Other orders pursuant to section 155(4) of the Constitution deems appropriate.
   

2. The substantive hearing of this matter was heard on 12 July 2022 where the Plaintiff appeared in person and there was no appearance by the Defendants or their representative. After hearing Mr. Lyangao in this matter, the Court ordered that Mr. Lyangao file written submissions to assist the Court as the oral submissions were quite vague. The Plaintiff has since filed submissions on 15 July 2022, and this is the Court’s decision on the merits of this matter.

3. At the outset, the pleadings in the Amended Originating Summons set out above salvaging the real pleadings is not quite up to par as to what one would expect from a student wanting to be admitted to the Legal Training Institute to be trained as a lawyer in a profession that is held in the highest regard in the country. Of course, the Plaintiff has much interest and is very enthusiastic and quite ambitious seeking the Court’s intervention in his plight to allow him to the Legal Training Institute however his pleadings in his Amended Originating Summons tell me to probe his case with caution as the grounds on which he relies on for entry to Legal Training Institute seems to assert a right to enter the Legal Training Institute rather than meeting certain criteria as is the case.

4. The Plaintiff states in his evidence that he graduated from the University of Papua New Guinea in 2010 and was denied admission to the Legal Training Institute based on his Grade Point Average (GPA). The Plaintiff then upgraded his GPA through the Lahara Programme at the University of Papua New Guinea and was given the GPA of 2.52 however the Legal Training Institute again refused to allow him to do his legal training. The Plaintiff then wrote to the Legal Training Institute in a letter dated 1 June 2021 as there was no response from the Legal Training Institute, the Plaintiff then filed these proceedings.

5. Having read through the Plaintiff’s written submissions, the Plaintiff seems to misunderstand and misapply the provisions of the law in relation to the requirements of being accepted into the Legal Training Institute and being admitted as a lawyer to the bar to practice law. The law the Plaintiff relies on in support of his application being the various provisions of the Constitution is also misapplied and perhaps misunderstood by the Plaintiff as I find the submissions on the Constitution erroneously applied as well as provisions under the Lawyers Act relied on.

6. Section 25 of the Lawyers Act which the Plaintiff relies on is in regard to an Applicant applying to be admitted as a lawyer to practice at the bar and not as an applicant seeking to enter the Legal Training Institute.

7. Acceptance into the Legal Training Institute is through the Council of the Legal Training Institute and is governed by section 16 of the Post-graduate Legal Training Act as follows:

16. ADMISSION TO THE INSTITUTE.

(1) Subject to Subsection (2), candidates for admission may be admitted to the Institute as trainees and may be suspended or dismissed, in such manner and on such conditions as are determined by the Council.

(2) A candidate for admission shall not be admitted to the Institute as a trainee unless–

(a) he is, in the opinion of the Council, a fit and proper person; and
(b) he has spent a period of, or periods totaling, not less than 12 months in the field–

(i) studying customary laws and practices; or
(ii) carrying out work involving customary laws and practices; or
(iii) carrying out community work of a legal nature,

under the supervision of the Dean of the Faculty of Law of the University of Papua New Guinea or a person appointed by him for the purposes.

(3) The Council may, in its discretion, in the interests of maintaining a sufficient number of citizens qualified for admission to practice as legal practitioners under the Admission Rules, dispense with the requirements of Subsection (2) and admit candidates for admission to the institute as trainees who, but for that subsection, would be qualified for admission.

(4) This subsection and Subsection (3) expire on a date to be fixed by the Minister by notice in the National Gazette.

8. The composition of the Legal Training Council is found in section 5 of the Post-graduate Legal Training Act.

9. Having gone through this file and the various Affidavits filed by the Plaintiff, he seems to assert a right under the Constitution and under the Lawyers Act for admissions as a trainee into the Legal Training Institute.

10. Going through the court file, my attention is drawn to an Affidavit by the First Defendant Ms. Angelyn Paranda filed on 11 August 2021. Ms. Paranda states that the Plaintiff had a GPA of 2.31 when he first applied to the Legal Training Institute in 2010 and was denied acceptance as his GPA was below the required GPA of 2.75 then.

11. The Plaintiff then presented a GPA of 2.5 in 2021. The Legal Training Institute then wrote to the Acting Executive Dean of Law School Professor John Luluaki to confirm the GPA status of students intending to join the Legal Training Institute including the Plaintiff however the UPNG Law School in response to the letter only provided GPA confirmations for students who completed their law degree in 2020 which did not include the Plaintiff. Ms. Paranda, therefore, states that the Plaintiff has not met the GPA to be admitted into the Legal Training Institute.

12. Ms. Paranda also states in her affidavit that as Mr. Lyangao is seeking Orders for the Court to grant him admission into LTI for the 2021 academic year, it was quite late as classes had well progressed into its’ tenth week since August 2021.

13. The Plaintiff’s pleadings seek his admission into the Legal Training Institute for the year 2021 and these proceedings, therefore, seem redundant that the Plaintiff’s hearing was heard in July 2022 and the Plaintiff has not even asked to amend his pleadings and or seek orders for acceptance in the Legal Training Institute for the year 2023 to be realistic. On the other hand, the pleadings, the law relied on, the submissions are a complete mess and completely missing the mark and is a total waste of the Court’s time.

14. This is a frivolous and vexatious claim that has no basis in law and has been poorly prosecuted by an ill-informed litigant who is far from understanding the law. It shall be dismissed accordingly.

15. The Court, therefore, makes the following orders;

1. These proceedings are dismissed in their entirety.
   

Orders accordingly.

_____________________________________________________________

Mr Taka Lyangao : Plaintiff In Person