PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

National Court of Papua New Guinea
You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> National Court of Papua New Guinea >> 2023 >> [2023] PGNC 381

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

Akipe v Manau [2023] PGNC 381; N10516 (11 October 2023)

N10516


PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]


OS (JR) NO. 40 OF 2022


HARI JOHN AKIPE AS MEMBER & CHAIRMAN OF THE HALEPURA CLAN OF BLOCK 1715, ANGORE PDL8, DAWA SAYAPE
First Plaintiff


And
JOHN POI AS MEMBER OF & CHAIRMAN OF THE TOPE CLAN OF BLOCK 1715, ANGORE PDL8
Second Plaintiff
And
HIMIYA JULA AS MEMBER & CHAIRMAN OF THE JULUMA CLAN OF BLOCK 1715, ANGORE PDL8.
Third Plaintiff


And
PHILIP POKOPI AS MEMBER & CHAIRMAN OF THE TAPU YALO BLOCK 1715, ANGORE PDL8.
Fourth Plaintiff


And
PETER MONDORO
Fifth Plaintiff


V
DAVID MANAU AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PETROLEUM
First Defendant


And
HON KERENGA KUA AS MINISTER FOR PETROLEUM
Second Defendant
And
INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA
Third Defendant


And
DAVID HAYABE-AS MEMBER OF AND CHAIRMAN OF THE POLOPU CLAN OF BLOCK 1715, ANGORE PDL8
Fourth Defendant


And
PAI WASA AS MEMBER OF & CHAIRMAN OF THE PAI NANAI CLAN OF BLOCK 1715, ANGORE PDL 8
Fifth Defendant


Waigani: Miviri J
2023: 14th September, 11th October


PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Judicial Review & Appeals – Plaintiffs Application to Extend Time to Comply – Order 1 Rule 15 NCR – Fourth Defendant Application to Dismiss Proceedings – Order 16 Rule 13(13)(2)(a)(b)(i) NCR – Breach of Directional Court Orders – Evidentiary Basis – Material Relied Against Insufficient – Application to Extend Time To Comply Refused – Application to Dismiss Proceedings granted – Costs Follow Event.


Cases Cited:
Gumanch Muipulg Wampnga Ltd v Samson [2020] PGNC 267; N8490
Kalinoe v Kereme [2017] PGSC 26; SC1631
PNG Deep Sea Fishing Ltd v Critten [2010] PGSC 53; SC1126
University of Papua New Guinea v Rosso [2021] PGNC 318; N9063
Yawari v Agiru [2008] PGSC 31; SC948


Counsel:
J. Nandape, for First to Fourth Plaintiffs
D. Kop, for Fifth Plaintiff.
M. Tumul, for Fourth Defendant
R. Uware, for the State Defendants


RULING


11th October 2023


  1. MIVIRI, J: This is the ruling of the court on two motions, firstly that of the fourth defendant of the 16th August 2023, pursuant to Order 16 rule 13 (13) (2) (a) (b) (i) of the National Court Rules, for the dismissal of this proceedings on breach of directional Orders that were issued by this Court on the 05th June 2023. Which orders are annexure “JN3” of the affidavit of Judy Nandape, lawyer for the first to the Fourth Plaintiffs sworn of the 28th August 2023 filed of the 30th August 2023. It is in the following terms:

7

  1. These were consent orders obtained by the Consent of Ms Judy Nandape lawyer for the first to the fourth plaintiffs, Mr. Daniel Kop lawyer for the fifth plaintiffs, and Mr Russel Uware lawyer for the first second and third defendants tying down their respective clients to discharging the obligations accordingly. For the plaintiff term one (1) required that they filed and served affidavits that they intended to rely on by or before Monday 19th June 2023. The affidavit of Judy Nandape sworn of the 28th August 2023 states that affidavits have been filed by the parties in compliance with the Direction set out above. Term three (3) has been complied by the fifth Defendants of the 14th July 2023. The first to the fourth plaintiffs have done so as of the 17th August 2023. But not the third and fourth defendants.
  2. She continues that, “As for compliance with terms 4, 5 and 6 of the Court Order, we did not prepare an index to the review book, but we are intending to file a further affidavit containing evidence on the current status of proceeding OS No. 546 of 2010 which is the case in which the original mediation orders were made. We therefore did not circulate the draft index to the Review Book and with being busy with other cases and my involvement as a member of the Board of the Southern Highlands Provincial Health Authority, I overlooked the deadlines.
  3. Without a forewarning letter, the fourth defendant sent us an email annexure “JN4” on 16th August 2023 in which was enclosed the motion to dismiss the proceeding together with the two-supporting affidavit.
  4. I sought instructions from my clients and on 17th August 2023, I wrote a 2 paged letter to Tumul Legal and the Lawyers for the other defendants and copies to lawyer for the fifth Plaintiff. Enclosed in the letter annexure “JN5” was a draft of the Index to the Review Book. In summary, I said the following in the letter;
  5. I did not receive any response from the defendants so on 25th August 2023, I sent a follow-up email with a view to compiling the review book. On the same day I received an email annexure “JN7” from Tumul Legal advising that they were seeking instructions from their client regarding our letter.
  6. On 25th August 2023, we received another email annexure “JN8” from Tumul Legal which attached to it their letter in response to our earlier Letter.
  7. On 28th August 2023 I responded to Tumul Legal’s Letter annexure “JN9” and soon thereafter prepared the application seeking extension of time.
  8. My clients are not the only ones who have defaulted in the complying with the direction orders. Tumul Legal and their client have filed their client’s notice to rely on affidavit out of time. The first, second third and fifth defendants have completely failed to file their notice to rely on affidavit despite having filed affidavit evidence.
  9. We have compiled the review book as per the draft index we circulated, and we are ready to file should the Court grant us leave to do so.”
  10. This is the evidence in support of the Notice of Motion of the 30th August 2023 which is pleaded in the following terms:
  11. Examining Order 16 there is no Rule 18 (8) (1) (a) within because the last order thereunder is Order 16 Rule 15 Commencement of these rules. Which effect is that the pleading with reference to that order here does not accord the jurisdictional basis of the pleading. Accordingly pleading number two of the motion will not be accorded. It is by that fact of no consequence to the case of the first to the fourth plaintiff. The same befalls term 1 (c) and 2 of the Motion. They in likeness do not have the jurisdictional basis to be accorded what is pleaded there. They have no bearing and are without merit. They are by that fact dismissed forthwith.
  12. The remaining Terms 1, (a), (b), and Order 16 rule 13 (1) of the National Court Judicial Review (Amendment) Rules 2005, Order 1 Rule 15 of the National Court Rules do not bear jurisdictional basis to be granted the applicants what is sought there. There is no National Court Judicial Review (Amendment) Rules 2005. Order 16 Rule 13 (1) is Judicial Review List maintained by the Registrar. It is not the jurisdictional basis for the notice of motion of the first to the Fourth Plaintiffs. It is not likened to Order 12 Rule 8 (3) where orders can be varied because a party has not been in attendance, in that the subject order has been obtained ex parte. That is not the thrust of Order 16 Rule 13 (1), because it does not give the form nor the jurisdiction upon to extend time given that there is apparent breach of the orders in the hands of the First to Fourth plaintiffs here. It merely speaks of the maintenance of a list kept by the Registrar in this track, Judicial review. And the fact that a notice to rely on an affidavit filed on 17th August 2023 by the first to the fourth plaintiffs as being filled within time as provided for in term 4 of the direction orders of 05th June 2023, is not jurisdictional basis under the rules to extend time for compliance of the orders of the 05th June 2023. It remains as it is, a failure to comply with Court Orders directed. And will not improve the motion pleaded for the applicant plaintiffs.
  13. Similarly, term 1 (b) of the motion does not have the jurisdictional basis for extension of terms 4 to 6 of the orders of the 06th June 2023. The material set out above does not establish any basis for extension. There is no Order or Rule giving the jurisdiction to accord this pleading. It is without that elementary requirement in law and will not accord in favour of First to the fourth plaintiffs. It is a motion that is not with the jurisdictional basis either in the Rules of Court or the law. The aggregate is that the Notice of motion of the first to the fourth Plaintiffs set out above in total is dismissed as being without merit forthwith with Costs. Because varying a court order must have jurisdictional as well as the evidentiary basis to sustain, here extension sought in the time to comply: PNG Deep Sea Fishing Ltd v Critten [2010] PGSC 53; SC1126 (10 December 2010).
  14. Here Order (i) obligates the plaintiff to fulfilling filing and serving of affidavits that they intend to rely on by or before the Monday 19th June 2023. Like the other parties in the cause of action drawn obligated by that order, it is discharged if there are affidavits filed and served in accordance with that timeline drawn. For the defendants this is by Order (ii) so if any of defendants have not complied, they are in breach of that term. It means they cannot file and serve any affidavits after Monday 03rd July 2023. Order (iii) is for the parties both Plaintiff as well as the defendants to file notices under the Evidence Act by Monday 10th July 2023. If that has not eventuated by the parties by the date designated, it is a breach of that order, here by the plaintiffs as well as the defendants. In that affidavit Judy Nandape, lawyer for the First to the Fourth Plaintiffs, deposes that on the 05th June 2023, she attended Court together with Mr. Daniel Kop and Mr. Russel Uware. And the case was mentioned in Court, and they informed the Court that it was for directions hearing. And they handed up in Court a copy of the direction’s orders that, “I had circulated to Parties. The Court endorsed the draft directions Orders. Sealed Copies had not been returned to us.” Parties have complied with terms 1 and 2 of the directions orders in that affidavit evidence have been filed. As for term 3 only the fifth Defendant has filed his notice to rely on affidavit dated 10th July 2023. The first to the fourth plaintiffs have filed their notice to rely on affidavit dated 17th August 2023.
  15. As for compliance with terms 4, 5, and 6 “we did not prepare an index to the Review Book, but we were intending to file a further affidavit containing evidence on the current status of proceeding OS No. 546 of 2010 which is the case in which the original mediation orders were made. We therefore did not circulate the draft index to the review book and with being busy with other cases and my involvement as a member of the Board of the Southern Highlands Provincial Health Authority, I overlooked the deadlines. Without a forewarning letter, the fourth defendant sent us an email, annexure “JN4”on 16th August 2023 in which was enclosed the motion to dismiss the proceeding together with the two supporting affidavit.
  16. The first to the fourth Plaintiffs admit breach of the orders they had obtained. And do not place independent material evidencing what cases drew counsel away from this Order. And what times she travelled out of here to attend the subject meetings of the Southern Highlands Provincial Health Authority. There is no ticket butt or accommodation invoice paid for evidencing period absent so as not to oblige the subject orders. These proceedings were instituted by the first to the fourth plaintiffs by their notice of motion filed of the 25th July 2022 where they contend:
  17. Leave was granted by this Court for Judicial Review on the 22nd July 2022. And the subject directional orders by consent set out above were endorsed by this Court on the 05th June 2023. What is relevant in the affidavit is material to sway as to whether the orders have been complied with issued of the 05th June 2023. It is not relevant to consider conduct that has come before this order set out in that affidavit of the 13th December 2022 right up to the 05th June 2023 when the orders were issued. What is pertinent to and relevant to the motion relied on is what has happened since that order issued. How has that order been complied with? For the first to the Fourth Plaintiffs as initiating this cause of action, it is material that the term 4, 5, and 6 of the directional orders of the 05th June 2023 are complied with because the proceedings the subject of their substantive notice of motion will materialize. The index to and the Review book are material foundations of this proceedings without which the first to the fourth plaintiffs have failed. And it cannot be cured by the affidavit that Ms Nandape has filed particulars set out above. By the same I do not consider the breaches by the defendant’s material as they can live without it. It will not drive the cause of action. The cause of action is dependent on the Review book which has not been compiled and served by the date Monday 17th July 2023 on the fifth plaintiff and the defendants. Who are to return it on the 07th August 2023 with comments and endorsement. From which the first to the fourth Plaintiffs is to file and serve the review book on the fifth plaintiff and the defendants on Monday 14th August 2023.
  18. That affidavit confirms in material particulars the breach of the orders admitted by Ms Nandape. By itself it corroborates and evidences the assertion of the motion that fourth defendant pursuant to Order 16 rule 13 (13) (2) (a) of the National Court Rules, for the dismissal of this proceedings on breach of directional Orders has filed. It is very strong evidence that the Directional Orders of the 05th June 2023 have been breached by the First to the fourth Plaintiffs in very material particulars essential to the initiation of this proceedings they have issued. They should have served on the 17th July 2023 the compiled draft review book which has not been done evidenced set out above coupled with paragraph 4 of the affidavit relied by the fourth defendant of Moses Liu sworn and filed of the 16th August 2023. In this regard is also the affidavits of David Hayabe sworn and filed also of the 16th August 2023. And that of lawyer Mek Tumul sworn and filed of the 29th August 2023.
  19. There is clear evidence emanating from the search of the Court file initiated by lawyer Moses Liu on the 15th August 2023 that no review book had been filed by the first to the fourth Plaintiffs satisfying the order taken out subjected here. Permeating this motion for dismissal of the 16th August 2023. Which was prompted by the admission of failure to comply with the orders by Ms Nandape set out above. And the proposition for her clients to pay the costs and allowing the matter to proceed to trial. There is really no explanation for the non-compliance of the orders, particularly terms 4 and 6 material to the action they have instituted. And this is not even there in the letter of the 17th August 2023 by them.
  20. Order 16 Rule 13 (13) (2) (a) with (b) (i) are relevantly the jurisdictional basis of the motion of the fourth defendants. It seeks to summarily dispose the proceedings for the failure of the first to the fourth plaintiffs to comply with the Court ordered directions of the 05th June 2023. And the application is properly founded on that order. Because this is not the first time that this court has seen similar University of Papua New Guinea v Rosso [2021] PGNC 318; N9063 (13 August 2021) and Gumanch Muipulg Wampnga Ltd v Samson [2020] PGNC 267; N8490 (4 September 2020) suffered dismissal in similar terms as the present applied.
  21. And here it is pertinent to point that the first to the fourth Plaintiffs has caused no reasonable explanation as to why they have not complied with the orders they obtained. It is not the same for the fourth defendant who has filed an affidavit on the 16th August 2023 stating that his clan Polopu has been sought removal as beneficiary in the Angore PDL 8 Block 1715 by the first to the fourth Plaintiffs. He found out that he was left out so applied and was joined as fourth defendant. The PNG LNG Gas Agreement was signed on 22nd May 2008 which is over 15 years now. In April 2014 Production started and the first shipment was delivered to Japan on 25th May 2014 over 9 years now. This case was filed on the 13th April 2022 a year going into two now. And money has been spent on it by the State and all others involved with mediation. Which continues to over escalate, and such a matter grave has brought no reasonable explanation from the first to the fourth plaintiffs. It begs their genuineness to the cause of action instituted. When orders of this Court are defied without reason. It would be trite to follow Kalinoe v Kereme [2017] PGSC 26; SC1631(3 November 2017) and Yawari v Agiru [2008] PGSC 31; SC948 (6 November 2008) in dismissing this cause of action for failure to comply with the orders of this Court of the 05th June 2023. Accordingly, the motion of the fourth defendant is granted in full as pleaded this cause of action is dismissed forthwith pursuant to Order 16 Rule 13 (13) (2) (a) (b) (i) of the Rules of Court.
  22. The formal orders of the Court are:

Orders Accordingly.

__________________________________________________________________

Nandape & Associate Lawyers: Lawyers for the First to Fourth Plaintiffs/Applicant

Toll Lawyers: Lawyers for Fifth Plaintiff

Tumul Legal: Lawyers for Fourth Defendant

Office of the Solicitor General: Lawyers for the First to Third Defendants

PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/pg/cases/PGNC/2023/381.html