SC2871

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE]

SC REV. NO. 4 OF 2024, and SC REV. NOs. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of 2024 (IECMS) (Joined Hearings)

BENJAMIN SAMSON, SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND PHYSICAL PLANNING
First Applicant

ALA ANE, REGISTRAR DEPARTMENT OF LANDS AND PHYSICAL PLANNING
Second Applicant

HON. JOHN ROSSO, MP MINISTER FOR LANDS AND PHYSICAL PLANNING
Third Applicant

V
DR ERIC KWA, SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE AND ATTORNEY GENERAL NORMINAL DEFENDANT FOR THE GONVENOR GENERAL OR HEAD OF STATE
First Respondent

INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA
Second Respondent

MICHAEL WAPI AND JENSIANA WAPI
Third Respondents

MARY PALA (SC REV. 5/24), ANDRO HOLDINGS LIMITED (SC REV. 6/24), INVESTPAC LIMITED (In SC REV. 7/24), TOTAL E & P PNG LIMITED (SC REV. 8/24), BOB KITNAMINI (In SC REV. 9/24 & SC REV. 11/24), MAKUS BINGOMALO (In SC REV. 10/24), MAGALONA ESTATES LIMITED (SC REV. 12/24), AND MOROBE FIRST INVESTMENTS LIMITED (SC REV. 13/24)
Fourth Respondents

WAIGANI: FRANK J, ANIS J, DOWA J
23 & 30 MARCH 2026

REVIEW UNDER SECTION 155(2)(b) – CONSTITUTION – Review against final decision of Judicial Review Court made ex-parte – whether the trial judge erred in the judicial process before arriving at his decision– whether the applicants were denied their rights to be heard– whether the  applicants were notified of the hearing date and time - s.59 of the Constitution – whether the third respondents also misled the Court at the material time – whether the standard pre-requisites for conducting a hearing ex-parte or a hearing were observed and implemented by the trial Judge – if procedural failures occurred, whether they also amount to irregularities - consideration – ruling

Facts

The Third Respondents were Plaintiffs in 10 judicial review proceedings which they filed against the Applicants, the State and Fourth Respondents.  They sought to challenge the decisions of the Minister for Lands & Physical Planning over 10 appeals that they had filed before him under s.62 of the Land Act 1996 where he had ruled against them.  Between 2016 and 2019, the Third Respondents lodged various applications in response to public tenders over state lands that were issued by the Department of Lands & Physical Panning.  Their applications were considered and determined by the Land Board.  They were aggrieved by the Land Board’s decisions on their 9 various applications, so they appealed to the Minister.  

When their appeals were dismissed, they lodged a total of 10 judicial review proceedings against the Minister’s decision.  From the 10 applications that went before the Land Board, 1 of their applications was successful but was later overturned on appeal (to the Minister) in favour of Andro Holdings Limited who is named as the Fourth Respondent in SC REV. 6/24.  Thus, the Applicants also applied for judicial review against the Minister’s said decision which explains the increase from 9 to 10 judicial review challenges.

On 9 January 2023, after the Court had granted leave to review, the substantive hearing proceeded ex-parte.  The trial Court, in a summary manner, granted the 10 judicial review applications.  Its primary orders were to refer the Third Respondents’ 10 rejected applications back to the Land Board, and for the Land Board to reconvene and reconsider them together with the others who had also applied for those state lands concerned.

The Applicants were aggrieved and filed these reviews.

Held:

1.	Unlike normal appeals that are filed as of right or with leave of the Court under the abbreviation SCA, reviews may be likened with judicial reviews.  The Court is tasked to consider and make findings not on the actual decision itself, but rather, on the decision-making process that was applied by a trial judge to arrive at his or her decision.

Moi Avei & Electoral Commission v Charles Maino [2000] PNGLR 157, Anisi v. Aimo (2013) SC1237 and Waranaka v. Dusava (2009) SC980 applied.

2.	Misleading a trial Court that causes or results in breach of practice and procedures may constitute a valid reason to uphold a review premised on (i) error(s) of law on the face of the record and (ii) procedural irregularity or irregularities.

Anthony Waira and Ors v. Samuel Penias and Ors (2025) SC 2828 and John Jimberi Jr v. Thomas Yetuin (2025) SC2707 at pp. 50-53 referred to.

3.	When a matter is set down for hearing and one of the parties is not present on the date of hearing, a trial Court’s duty in observance of fairness under s.59 of the Constitution include:

(i)	satisfying itself that the party concerned was notified of the hearing or obtaining an explanation as to why the party concerned was not present;

(ii)	checking whether a notice of hearing was filed and served on all the parties, or if directions had been issued then checking whether they had been complied with in full; and

(iii)	satisfying itself with cogent evidence such as an affidavit of service to consider whether to proceed with a trial or not, and not to totally rely on word of mouth or oral explanations (especially from a party that has competing interest in a matter concerned).

4.	The trial judge was misled by the Third Respondents in granted them leave to proceed ex-parte because, contrary to what Mr. Wapi had told the Court on 9 January 2023, the Applicants and none of the other respondents attended Court on 19 December 2022, and they also did not agree with the Third Respondents to set the matter down for hearing at 1:30pm on 9 January 2023.

5.	Proceeding to hear the matter ex-parte on 9 January 2023 constituted (i) an error of law on the fact of the record, that is, contrary to s.59 of the Constitution of the right to natural justice of the Applicants, and (ii) irregularities which included proceeding to hearing without the presence of the Applicants, the First and Second Respondents and the Fourth Respondents; and proceeding without evidence to show that notices of hearing had been filed and served or without receiving any evidence at all such as an affidavit of service to prove that all the parties had been notified of the hearing date.

6.	The reviews were upheld and orders made that included referring the matter back to the National Court for a re-hearing of the 10 judicial review proceedings.

Cases cited

Moi Avei & Electoral Commission v Charles Maino [2000] PNGLR 157
Anisi v. Aimo (2013) SC1237 and Waranaka v. Dusava (2009) SC980
Erie Ovako Jurvie v. Bonny Oveyara & Electoral Commission (2008) SC935
Application by Ben Semri (2003) SC723
Anthony Waira and Ors v. Samuel Penias and Ors (2025) SC2828
John Jimberi Jr v. Thomas Yetuin (2025) SC2707 at pp. 50-53

Counsel

G Gogora with counsel assisting C H Winduo, for the applicants
G Akia with counsel assisting Z Joel, for the first and second respondents
M Wapi, for himself and J Wapi, the third respondents
No appearance by Mary Pala, Fourth Respondent in SC REV. 5/24
J Hombiwanga, for the fourth respondent in SC REV. 6/24
E Kasi, for the fourth respondent in SC REV. 7/24
C Kalu, for the fourth respondent in SC REV. 8/24
No appearance by Bob Kitnamini in SC REV. 9/24 & SC REV. 11/24
No appearance by Makus Bingomalo in SC REV. 10/24
S Liria, for the fourth respondent in SC REV. 12/24
No appearance by Morobe First Investments Limited in SC REV. 13/24

1.	FRANK J:  I have read the draft judgment proposed by my brother judges. I agree that the orders of the trial judge be quashed or set aside and for the consequential orders also proposed for reasons as to the law and the ground discussed in the joint reasons upon which these reviews are to be determined. I add a few remarks to the reasons in the joint judgment and comment on the other grounds of review.

2.	The background is set out in the joint judgment. These reviews arise from orders issued on 9 January 2023 in Order 16 judicial review proceedings, in which the third respondents sought to review the recommendations of the Papua New Guinea Land Board (“Board”) and the determinations of appeals against those recommendations for 10 different state lease land that were made available for lease for which they had applied and in which, ultimately, they were not successful in any.

3.	In the notices of motion for judicial review, the common grounds raised (rephrasing the review grounds) were that trial judge erred in law and mixed fact and law when he – 

(a)	determined that the third respondents were denied natural justice because:

(i)	the Board and the Head of State were not obliged to provide reasons for their recommendations or determinations as the case may be;
(ii)	the third respondents were invited to participate at the Board hearings;
(iii)	the Board provided reasons for its recommendations; and,
(iv)	the third respondents were given the opportunity when their appeals were considered and determined by the Head of State pursuant to section 62 of the Land Act 1996 (“Act”);

(b)	allowed and heard, in breach of section 59 of the Constitution, the motion for judicial review in the absence of the defendants in the judicial review proceedings;

(c)	allowed and heard the motion for judicial review without affording the defendants in the judicial review proceedings the opportunity to make oral submissions as it constituted a procedural irregularity and resulted in a substantial miscarriage of justice;

(d)	misconstrued and misapplied the facts in OS (JR) 14 of 2021 (which relates to SCREV 4 of 2024) to each of the other 9 judicial review proceedings in his determinations of those proceedings on 9 January 2023; and

(e)	remitted the matter back to the Board to re-consider the third respondents’ applications for lease.

4.	Based on the written and oral submissions, it appears that the applicants have abandoned grounds (a), (d) and (e) above as these were not addressed or seriously pressed in their submissions. In any event, these grounds are misconceived because – 

(a)	as regards ground (a) above, the trial judge did not apply any fact peculiar to OS(JR) 14 of 2021 to arrive at the orders of 9 January 2023 in respect of each of the other 9 judicial review proceedings. The common fact which the trial judge applied was the absence of evidence of compliance with his orders of 24 November 2022 for the production to the court of the reasons supporting the Board’s recommendation and the Head of State’s determination of the appeals; and

(b)	as regards ground (e) above, it is consequential to the trial judge’s orders of 9 January 2023 quashing the Board’s recommendations and the Head of State’s determinations of the appeals.

5.	As regards ground (c) above, as none of the defendants in the judicial review proceedings had appeared before the trial judge on 19 December 2022 and 9 January 2023, it was not possible for oral submissions to be made. Ground (b) above sufficiently covers the point to be advanced by this ground.

6.	As regards ground (b) above, although the transcripts evidence referenced in paragraphs 22 to 24 of the joint reasons stood against the third respondents, they did not adduce any to suggest that any or all of the defendants in the judicial review proceedings were informed that the judicial review proceedings were returning before the court on 19 December 2022 and 9 January 20023.

7.	ANIS J & DOWA J:  The 10 related reviews were set down for hearing before us.  We heard them all on 23 March 2026 before we reserved our decision to a date to be advised.

BACKGROUND

8.	The 10 reviews were all filed against a single decision of the National Court (JR Court) in a consolidated or joint proceedings described as OS (JR) 14, 32, 38, 39, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47 and 48 of 2021 – Michael Wapi and Jensiana Wapi v. Hon. John Rosso and Ors, (10 JR proceedings).  The third respondents were the plaintiffs in the 10 JR proceedings.  

9.	Their 10 JR proceedings may be explained as follows:  Over the years between 2016 and 2019, the third respondents applied for various state lands that were advertised by public tender by the Department of Lands & Physical Planning (DLPP).  The tender applications concerned were 10 in total.  Except for 1 of their applications which was successful, but which was later overturned on appeal to the Land Board (i.e., land described as Business Commercial Lease Allotment 5, Section 67, Wewak, East Sepik Province which was the subject of OS(JR) No. 38 of 2021), their 9 other applications were unsuccessful as first preferences by the Land Board.  We, however, note that in SC REV. 4/24, the Land Board decided to withdraw its tender offer despite having considered the third respondents’ application, which caused the third respondents to appeal the said decision.  So, the third respondents challenged the decisions of the Land Board for these 9 matters by appealing to the Minister for Lands and Physical Planning under s.62 of the Land Act 1996.  In all 9 cases, their appeals were unsuccessful.  Regarding Allotment 5, Section 67, Wewak (which was initially successfully recommended in their favour by the Land Board), an unsuccessful applicant who also tendered for the said property which is the fourth respondent in SC REV. 6/24 Andro Holdings Limited, appealed against the decision of the Land Board to the Minister.  The Minister upheld Andro Holdings Limited’s appeal and thus granted or recommended the grant of Allotment 5, Section 67 to Andro Holdings Limited.

10.	The third respondents then filed the 10 JR proceedings challenging the decisions of the Minister.  The proceedings were filed separately because they involved different state leases and different factual backgrounds.

11.	Leave to apply for judicial review was granted on 23 November 2022, and after that, the matters were listed and heard in joint hearings up to the time of their conclusion on 9 January 2023.  On that day, the JR Court, in an ex-parte hearing, granted the judicial review applications of third respondents.

12.	The final orders of the Court in regard to the 10 JR proceedings read:

1.	Pursuant to Order 16 of the National Court Rules, an order that the plaintiffs’ application for judicial review is granted to review (sic) the decision of the first defendant as the nominal defendant for the Head of State and/or the second and third defendants which was confirmed and published by the fourth defendant in the National Gazette no. G731 dated 02nd November 2020 in item #1 in determining the plaintiffs’ appeal as ‘Appeal dismissed and confirmed as Withdrawn’ in relation to the state lease described as Residence (High Covenant) Lease over Allotment 64 Section 123, Madang, Madang Province.

2.	A declaration that the decision made by the first defendant as the nominal defendant for the Head of State and/or the second and third defendants is in breach of the principles of natural justice or was a denial of natural justice thus contrary to Section 59 of the Constitution in not to or failing to provide its reason for its decision to dismiss the plaintiffs’ appeal and to confirm as withdrawn hence the decision is unlawful, null and void and of no effect.

3.	An order in the nature of Certiorari is removed into this Court and granted and quashed the decision of the first defendant as the nominal defendant for the Head of State and/or the second and third defendants which was confirmed and published by the fourth defendant in the National Gazette no. G731 dated 2nd November 2020 in item #01 in determining the plaintiffs’ appeal as ‘Appeal dismissed and confirmed as Withdrawn’ in relation to the state lease described as Residence (High Covenant) Lease over Allotment 64 Section 123, Madang, Madang Province.

4.	An order that the matter is remitted back to the National Land Board for reconsideration of the plaintiffs (sic) and others (sic) application (sic) for the land or state lease described as Residence (High Covenant) Lease over Allotment 64 Section 123, Madang, Madang Province.

5.	Costs to the plaintiffs to be taxed, if not agreed.
……

REVIEW GROUNDS

13.	The review grounds filed by the applicants (and we refer to the affidavit of Jonathan Holingu filed 12 March 2026 in SC REV. 4/24) may be summarized as follows:

•	The trial judge erred in law and mixed fact and law when he determined that the third respondents were denied their rights to natural justice (right to be heard);

•	The trial judge erred in mixed fact and law in allowing the substantive hearing to proceed without representations made by the applicants thereby contravening their rights to natural justice (right to be heard) thus breaching s. 59 of the Constitution;

•	The trial judge erred in mixed fact and law in allowing the substantive hearing to proceed without allowing the applicants to make oral submissions which constitute procedural irregularities thus giving rise to substantial miscarriage of justice.

14.	At the outset of our consideration, we are inclined to and in so doing dismiss the third ground of review as baseless and misconceived.  The reason for our decision is this.  There is undisputed fact that shows that the applicants were not represented at the hearing of 9 January 2023.  And because they were not present at the hearing, the opportunity for them to make oral submissions to the Court was never there for them to then allege and raise that as a ground of review?

COURT’S REVIEW POWER

15.	We remind ourselves of our review powers which is provided for under s.155(2)(b) of the Constitution.  The case law on this point is settled.  Unlike normal appeals that are filed as of right or with leave of the Court under the abbreviation SCA, reviews may be likened with judicial reviews.  The Court is tasked to consider and make findings not on the actual decision itself, but rather, on the decision-making process that was applied by a trial judge to arrive at his or her decision.  See cases: Moi Avei & Electoral Commission v Charles Maino [2000] PNGLR 157, Anisi v. Aimo (2013) SC1237 and Waranaka v. Dusava (2009) SC980.

16.	This Court in Moi Avei & Electoral Commission v Charles Maino (supra) stated as follows:

Review on the other hand is not an appeal procedure. It is concerned not with the decision itself but with the decision making process. It is the supervisory jurisdiction of the (National and the) Supreme Court empowering it to intervene, at its discretion, to ensure that the decisions of inferior courts or authorities made are within the limits of, and in accordance with, duties imposed on them by law. But it is not part of this jurisdiction for the Court to substitute its own findings or opinions for that of the authority that Parliament has appointed to determine the matters in question. It is not intended to take away from those authorities the powers and discretions properly vested in them by law and to substitute the Court as the decision-maker.

……

Nonetheless the Court may intervene by judicial review where a Court or authority acts outside the jurisdiction given it by law, that is where it makes determinations it is not authorized to make. It can intervene where there is error of law on the face of the record, procedural irregularity or when it is plain that the decision reached is such as to be unsustainable in law or reason. Further no conflict of jurisdiction arises even with legislation excluding Court challenges such as s 220 of the Organic Law, because review is not an appeal procedure but rather a protection of the integrity of the decision making process. SC Review No. 1 of 1990; Application by Electoral Commission [1990] PNGLR 441.

The Constitutional provision granting the power of review doesn’t themselves deal with the rights of person seeking to invoke those power or the procedures for doing so. They are provided for elsewhere in the Constitution and by other laws. Nor has the Supreme Court laid down rules for the conduct of applications for judicial review. But by decisions commencing with Avia Ahi it has determined that its inherent powers entrenched by the Constitution will be exercised only with caution. In claims made when parties have failed to exercise appeal rights within time in criminal or civil cases, the Court requires that it be shown that a review sought (a) is in the interest of justice; (b) there are cogent and convincing reasons and exceptional circumstances, where some substantial injustice is manifest or the case is of special gravity; and (c) there are clear legal grounds meriting a review of the decision, PNG v Colbert [1988] PNGLR 138.

17.	Premised on the case law [including Moi Avei & Electoral Commission v Charles Maino (supra), Anisi v. Aimo (supra), Waranaka v. Dusava (supra), Erie Ovako Jurvie v. Bonny Oveyara & Electoral Commission (2008) SC935, and Application by Ben Semri (2003) SC723)], the relevant criteria for consideration by a review Court may by summarised as follows:

1.	There is a clear error of law on the face of the record.

2.	There is gross error in the findings of fact.

3.	Procedural irregularity.

4.	When it is plain that the decision reached is such as to be unsustainable in law or reason.

5.	The decision is considered as so outrageous or absurd so as to result in injustice.

RIGHT TO BE HEARD/PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITIES

18.	We prefer to begin by first addressing the second ground of review.

19.	The applicants submit that because they were not present at the hearing on 9 January 2023, their rights to natural justice were breached, that is, pursuant to s.59(2) of the Constitution, which reads in part that the “minimum requirement of natural justice is the duty to act fairly and, in principle, to be seen to act fairly.”  They also argue that procedural irregularities were also committed before and during the said hearing.

20.	Except for the fourth respondent Total E & P PNG Limited in SC REV. 8/24 who took a neutral stand, the first and second respondents and the other fourth respondents herein support the applicants in these 10 reviews.  We also briefly heard submissions from them.

21.	As stated, there is no issue that the applicants were not present at the time of the hearing.  We, however, had to observe with dismay as Mr. Wapi, who appeared in person for himself and on behalf of his wife, tried to argue against this fact.  Mr. Wapi submitted (we paraphrase) that there was no court hearing on 9 January 2023; that the hearing was on the papers; that submissions and evidence were filed as ordered by the Court and the Court was left to decide which it did.  This was despite us pointing to Mr. Wapi on numerous occasions that the certified copies of the transcript of proceeding for the 9th of January 2023 were before us in all the 10 Review Books that were filed, and that they all showed that there was an actual Court hearing on 9 January 2023 and Mr. Wapi himself was present and made submissions on that day to the Court.  As reference, we refer to pp. 375 of Volume 2 of SC REV. 4/24.  

22.	We observe that Mr. Wapi was not telling the truth to the Court; that he was disingenuous.  

23.	That aside, and coming back to the issues before us, we make the following observations in our assessments:

•	There were no appearances by the applicants at the hearing on 9 January 2023;
•	None of the other interested parties who are named as fourth respondents herein also attended Court on the said date;
•	The matter was set down for hearing when it returned to Court on 19th December 2022; Mr. Wapi was the only person who attended Court on that day; there were no appearances by the applicants and the fourth respondents;
•	A certified copy of the transcript of proceedings for 19th of December 2022 is also included in the 10 Review Books that have been filed;
•	At line 20 at pp. 373 (of Review Book Vo. 2 in SC REV. 4/24), the Court recording was transcribed as follows:

His Honour:  All right. Okay, Mr Associate, we will have to check that with Mr. Henao and make sure all these related files are updated with the relevant correct orders.  So, for today the substantive review is now listed for hearing on 9 January 2023 at 13:30pm or soon thereafter.

All previous orders following the grant of leave are extended for full compliance, especially by the defendants by the State party defendants and well before the next return date.  Failure any compliance of the previous orders as extended now, the provisions of time now, the relief sought on the plaintiff’s notice of motion filed after grant of leave subject to term 4 of these orders shall be granted.  The plaintiff shall file and serve an amended notice of motion under – what term is this one, under – pursuant to order 16 rule 5.  Pursuant to order 16 rule 5 by 23 December 2022 by restricting reliefs sought to interim restraining orders; quashing of the relevant decision; the subject of this proceeding and remitting the matter to the National Lands Board for re-advertisement – sorry, for reconsideration of the application; reconsideration of the plaintiff’s application – plaintiff and other’ application for the land, the subject of this proceeding.
…….

•	On 9 January 2023, at line 20 at pp. 378 of the transcript of proceedings, we quote the following Court recording which was transcribed as follows:

His Honour:  Okay, all right.  So yes, they call for trial so yes, we will grant you leave to proceed.  Ms Kulumbu was in court when the matter was adjourned to today, right?
Mr. Wapi:  That is correct.
His Honour:  And she was okay with today’s date.
Mr. Wapi:  She was okay.
His Honour:  Yes, all right.  She is not here.  I will grant you leave to proceed ex parte. Counsel.

•	His Honour then proceeded with the judicial review hearing ex-parte and made orders in favour of the third respondents.

24.	Based on these observations, we are first of the view that Mr. Wapi misled the JR Court when he informed the Court that Ms. Kulumbu had attended the last hearing on 19 December 2022.  We are also of the view that Mr. Wapi also misled the JR Court when he said that Ms. Kulumbu had agreed to the hearing date.  And because the trial judge was misled, His Honour granted leave to the third respondents to proceed ex-parte. See cases:  Anthony Waira and Ors v. Samuel Penias and Ors (2025) SC 2828 and John Jimberi Jr v. Thomas Yetuin (2025) SC2707 at pp. 50-53.

25.	The consequences, in our view, were several.  First, it amounted to breaches of the rights to be heard by the applicants.  We find that their rights under s.59 of the Constitution was infringed.

26.	Secondly (and by the actions of Mr. Wapi in misleading the JR Court), His Honour granted leave to the third respondents to proceed ex-parte which was irregular given that the applicants were not present on the last return date nor did they give their consent for the matter to be trialed at 1:30pm on 9 January 2023.  Further, we have observed these other irregularities which we say were committed by the JR Court:

•	Since there were no appearances by the applicants, the first and second respondents, and the fourth respondents on 9 January 2023, the trial judge should have satisfied himself that a notice of trial or hearing was filed and served;
•	the trial judge should have also satisfied himself that his orders of 19 December 2022 had been complied with by Mr. Wapi;
•	the trial judge should have also satisfied himself with evidence filed by the third respondents (rather than by word of mouth from Mr. Wapi) particularly given that the matter was set down for hearing at the last-mentioned date without the knowledge or presence of the applicants, the first and second respondents, and the fourth respondents;
•	our perusal of the Review Books and the transcript of proceedings of 9 January 2023 show that the trial judge did not inquire with Mr. Wapi whether he served the applicants, the first and second respondents, and the fourth respondents and notified them of the hearing date; 
•	our perusal of the Review Books also show that the third respondents did not file any affidavit of service in the Court below (none disclosed as evidence in the Review Books) to prove that Mr. Wapi had complied with the Court issued directions of 19 December 2022, and that he had notified the applicants and the interested parties that the matter was set down for hearing at 1:30pm on 9 January 2023;
•	what this means to us is that no such evidence of service and notifications were provided to the JR Court and despite that, the Court proceeded to hear the substantive judicial review ex-parte.

27.	Breaches of the rights of the applicants to be heard, the lack of evidence to show that the third respondents had notified the applicants, the first and second respondents, and the fourth respondents of the hearing date, and the failure by the JR Court to satisfy itself that its orders of 19 December 2022 were complied with, with evidence in that regard, in our view, constitute (i) error of law committed on the face of the record, and (ii) irregularities.

28.	We are therefore minded upholding the reviews for these reasons.

29.	Because we have come to this conclusion, it is not necessary to consider the other ground of review.

RELIEF SOUGHT

30.	The reasonable relief to grant under the circumstances of this case, in our view, would be to refer the matter back to the JR Court to be heard by a different judge.

31.	We note, premised on the submissions of the applicants, the first and second respondents, and the fourth respondents that in most or some cases, the events may have overtaken the purpose of the JR proceedings.  We were, however, not fully assisted by Ms. Gogora in that regard (i.e., concerning the present status of each of the matters) and so these would be matters that may be properly considered and addressed later in the Court below.

32.	We note the submissions of Ms Kalu who acts for the fourth respondent, Total E & P PNG Limited in SC REV. 8/24.  Counsel submits that her client takes no stand in the review because her client has already surrendered its title to the property concerned (Business Commercial Lease Allotment 19 Section 22 Kerema Gulf Province).  Counsel submits that the Supreme Court should therefore not award any costs against her client or in the alternative, costs should be awarded as costs in the cause.

33.	In regard to the issue of cost, except for the fourth respondent Total E & P PNG Limited in SC REV. 8/24 which we will not make an order for cost against, we are minded to award costs against the third respondents in favour of the applicants, the first and second respondents, and the fourth respondents, that is, those respondents that have attended and participated in these review hearings.  In our view, the reviews have come to this stage because of actions of the third respondents.  We have found that it was primarily due to their failures in observing the basic fundamental rules on practice and procedures that had caused these matters to reach the Supreme Court in this manner.

34.	Costs will therefore be awarded in favour of the applicants, the first and second respondents, and the fourth respondents that were heard in these reviews excluding the fourth respondent Total E & P PNG Limited in SC REV. 8/24, against the third respondents on a party/party basis to be taxed if not agreed.

ORDERS OF THE COURT

35.	We make the following orders:

1.	The reviews are upheld.

2.	The ex-parte decision of the trial judge of 9 January 2023 made in the related matters OS (JR) 14, 32, 38, 39, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47 and 48 of 2021 – Michael Wapi and Jensiana Wapi v. Hon. John Rosso and Ors is set-aside forthwith.

3.	The matters are referred back to the National Court to be relisted before the Judicial Review Listings Court before a different judge to hear the substantive judicial reviews.

4.	The Third Respondents shall pay the costs of these reviews for the Applicants, the First and Second Respondents, and the Fourth Respondents, namely, Andro Holdings Limited, Investpac Limited and Magalona Estates Limited, on a party/party basis to be taxed if not agreed.

The Court orders accordingly.
_____________________________________________________________
Lawyers for the applicants: Holingu Lawyers
Lawyer for the first and second respondents: Solicitor General	
Lawyer for the third respondents: M Wapi, third respondent,  in person	
No appearance by Mary Pala:	Fourth Respondent in SC REV. 5/24
Lawyers or the fourth respondent in SC REV. 6/24: Kipes Lawyers
Lawyers for the fourth respondent in SC REV. 7/24:  Sarenga & Associate
Lawyers for the fourth respondent in SC REV. 8/24: Dentons
No appearance by Bob Kitnamini: Fourth Respondent in SC REV. 9/24 & SC REV. 11/24
No appearance by Makus Bingomalo:	Fourth Respondent in SC REV. 10/24
Lawyers for the fourth respondent in SC REV. 12/24: Liria Lawyers
No appearance by Morobe First Investments Limited: Fourth Respondent in SC REV. 13/24