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

Hamaga v Eco Care Engineering Ltd [2025] PGSC 95; SC2794 (31 October 2025)

SC2794

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE]

SCA NO 66 OF 2025 (IECMS)

BETWEEN:
ANDY HAMAGA, CHAIRMAN, HIDES PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT LICENCE 7 – LOCAL LEVEL GOVERNMENT SPECIAL PURPOSE AUTHORITY
First Appellant

AND:
HIDES PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT LICENCE 7 – LOCAL LEVEL GOVERNMENT SPECIAL PURPOSE AUTHORITY
Second Appellant

AND:
ECO CARE ENGINEERING LIMITED
Respondent


WAIGANI: NAROKOBI J, ELIAKIM J, KHAN J
31 OCTOBER 2025

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Objection to Competency – Order 7 Rule 15(a), – Form 9- Whether the Objection to Competency is Competent.

The Respondent filed an Objection to Competency of the Appeal filed by the Appellants. The Appeal relates to an order of the National Court for summary judgment with general and special damages to be assessed. The Appellants contends that the Objection to Competency is incompetent for offending Order 7 Rule 15(a) and Form 9 of the Supreme Court Rules.

Held:

(1) By the Court: the Objection to Competency filed by the Respondent cites the relevant provisions of the Supreme Court Rules the Notice of Appeal is said to offend without setting out concisely the whole of the grounds of the objection in accordance with Form 9. Objection to Competency is consequently incompetent.

Cases cited
Application by the Honourable Douglas Tomuriesa MP (2024) SC2645

Counsel
Mr M Alyata, for the appellant/respondent
Ms G. Kogora, for the respondent/applicants

RULING

1. BY THE COURT: The Appellants have appealed a decision of the National Court entering summary judgment against them for a liquidated sum of K1,015,000.00 and for assessment of general damages and special damages.
   
2. The Appellants sought leave to appeal pursuant to ss 14(1)(c ) and 14(3)(b) of the Supreme Court Act as the decision of the National Court was an interlocutory in nature.
   
3. On 23 April 2025 leave to appeal was granted by a single judge of the Supreme Court, Justice Hartshorn. An order for stay of the decision of the National Court ensued on 28 April 2025.
   
4. After the grant of leave the Appellants filed their appeal on 13 May 2025 and served on the Respondent on 20 May 2025.
   
5. After service of the Appeal, an Objection to Competency was filed by the Respondent on 2 June 2025 and served on the Appellants’ lawyers.
   
6. The Objection to Competency pleads the following:
   

...the notice of appeal contravenes:

(a) Order 7 rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules; and
(b) Order 7 rule 9 (c) and 10 of the Supreme Court Rules and principles in the Goledu case; thereby rendering the appeal incompetent.

Affidavit in support of this Notice of Objection to Competency is sworn by Jonathan Holingu on 29 May 2025.

7. At the hearing the Respondent abandoned the first ground of the objection.
   
8. The Appellants in response has made preliminary submissions that the Objection to Competency is in itself incompetent for not complying with Order 7 Rule 15 of the Supreme Court Rules and form 9 of the said Rules. They submit that the objection is incompetent as it lacks sufficient particulars.
   
9. We deal with the issue of the competency of the objection to competency first.
   
10. Order 7 rule 15(a) of the Supreme Court Rules states that the Objection to Competency must be in accordance with form 9 of the Supreme Court Rules.
    
11. Form 9 is in the following terms:
    

Form 9 *O 7 r 15(a) (Heading as in Form 8) NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO COMPETENCY OBJECTION to the competency of this appeal will be made at the Supreme Court, Waigani at . . . am/pm on the . . . day of . . . 20. . . . OBJECTION is made on the following grounds (set out concisely the whole of the grounds of the objection). DATED: Signed (To be signed by Respondent or his Lawyer) FILED BY: (Form 17) (Emphasis provided).

12. In Application by the Honourable Douglas Tomuriesa MP (2024) SC2645 the Supreme Court held that an objection to competency must itself be competent.
    
13. We are not satisfied that the Objection to Competency filed by the Respondent is competent. It does not set out concisely the whole of the grounds of the objection. The Objection merely cites the relevant provisions of the Supreme Court Rules the Notice of Appeal is said to offend. This in our view does not concisely set out the whole of the grounds of the objection. The Objection to Competency in our respectful view is incompetent.
    
14. Notwithstanding this finding, the Court has carefully perused the Notice of Appeal and the grounds stated therein. While some of the grounds appear repetitive and could have been more precisely framed, they nevertheless clearly identify the errors of law and fact the Appellants relies on.
    
15. We would therefore dismiss the objection to competency and order that the Respondent/Applicant pays the costs of the Appellants/Respondents of and incidental to defending the Objection to Competency, such costs to be taxed if not agreed.
    
16. The formal orders of the Court are as follows:
    
    1. The Objection to Competency filed by the Respondent on 2 June 2025 is dismissed.
    2. The Respondent shall pay the Appellants’ costs of and incidental to defending the Objection to Competency, such costs to be taxed if not agreed.
    3. Time is abridged.
       
17. Ruling and orders accordingly.
    

________________________________________________________________
Lawyers for the appellant: Strategic Legal Services
Lawyers for the respondents: Holingu Lawyers