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

Kulunga v Vaki [2014] PGSC 47; SC1391 (30 September 2014)

SC1391

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE

SCM NO 17 OF 2014

BETWEEN

TOAMI KULUNGA
Appellant

AND

GEOFFREY R.E. VAKI
First Respondent

AND

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
Second Respondent

AND

THE INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA
Third Respondent

Waigani: Mogish, Makail & Poole, JJ
2014: 30th September

SUPREME COURT APPEAL – Practice & Procedure – Consent orders - Application for Court to endorse consent order – Appeal uncontested – Appeal arises from finding of contempt of court – Conviction and sentence – Whether Court can endorse consent order – Public interest – Integrity of Court orders – Duty of Supreme Court to facilitate full and proper ventilation of findings of National Court – Supreme Court not to act as rubber stamp – Application refused.

Counsel:

Mr A. Manase & Mr D. Levy, for the Appellant
Mr S. Bonner, for the First Respondent
No appearance, for the Second Respondent
Ms J. Tindiwi, for the Third Respondent

RULING

30th September, 2014

1. BY THE COURT: This is not a civil action between the parties. This is an action which questions whether there has been compliance with the Order made by the National Court on 01st October 2012 in a Judicial Review proceeding. That decision was not appealed from but compliance with it was delayed and apparently other than complete.

2. Eventually the First Respondent brought an Application that the Appellant be punished for contempt of court of the Orders of Kirriwom, J which included reinstatement of the First Respondent as Assistant Commissioner of Police. The matter was contested; lengthy material was filed and the hearing was conducted before the Deputy Chief Justice in March 2014. The Court considered the evidence and law applicable and found the Appellant guilty of contempt on three counts and sentenced him to seven months imprisonment on each count, the terms to be served concurrently.

3. From this decision, the present Appeal has proceeded and not from the National Court decision which has never been questioned on Appeal. It is mistaken to now raise issues canvassed in the Judicial Review proceedings and consent to the effect of Orders made then; these are irrelevant. (Emphasis added).

4. Compliance with Court Orders is a matter of prime public interest regardless of whether an individual may feel he has suffered an injustice because of non-compliance. If the Court Orders are regarded as something that the individual has an option to obey, the basis of the rule of law is destroyed.

5. The subject of the Appeal is not the rights of the individual parties but the integrity of the Orders made by the Deputy Chief Justice on the 13th and 15th June 2014 on both conviction and sentence imposed. This Court would be failing in its duty if it did not facilitate the full and proper ventilation of this question of whether, and if so how, there has been a defect in the original findings that the Appellant had disobeyed the National Court Order of 01st October 2012.

6. We refuse to rubber stamp an endorsement of consent Orders without hearing the evidence. The application is refused and we invite parties to make submissions.

Ruling and orders accordingly.
_______________________________________________________________
Manase & Co Lawyers: Lawyer for the Appellant
Sam Bonner Lawyers: Lawyers for the First Respondent
Acting Solicitor-General: Lawyers for the Third Respondent