David Lambu v Peter Ipatas (No 4)

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Los J, Hinchliffe J, Sheehan J, Jalina J, Akuram J
• Judgment Date: 28 May 1999
• Court: Supreme Court
• Citation: [1999] PNGLR 634
• Year: 1999
• Judgement Number: SC645

Supreme Court: Los J, Hinchliffe J, Sheehan J, Jalina J, Akuram J

Judgment Delivered: 28 May 1999

SC645

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[In the Supreme Court of Justice]

SCR 11 of 1999

Application to Review Pursuant to Constitution

s. 18 155(2) (b) and 155 (4)

BETWEEN:

DAVID LAMBU

Applicant

AND:

PETER IPATAS

First Respondent

AND:

EDWARD KONU

Second Respondent

AND:

THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION

Third Respondent

Waigani: LOS, HINCHLIFFE, SHEEHAN, JALINA & AKURAM, JJ

1999: 25th, 28th May

Judicial Review — jurisdiction — power of Supreme Court to review its own decisions.

DECISION

The Applicant David Lambu seeks to review a decision of the Supreme Court made 27th November 1998 (Review No: 116/1998) which was itself a review of an earlier Supreme Court review judgement of the 5th of June 1998 in SCR 30/98. That judgement itself followed a review of a decision of the National Court striking out a petition brought by the Applicant.

The basis of the Applicants first review by the Supreme Court (SCR 30/98) was brought on the grounds that First Respondent's nomination as a candidate in the National Elections was invalid since he was already holding an elective public office. Alternatively upon succeeding in the election and becoming a member of Parliament because he was effectively holding another elected public office at that time his election was rendered void. The Supreme Court in SCR 30 of 1998 rejected those grounds and dismissed the application. The Applicant however brought a fresh application for review of that Supreme Court decision on grounds that while one of the two grounds that he had relied on had been determined the second had not.

The same bench of Supreme Court as heard SCR 30/98 was reconstituted and heard this application (SCR 116/98) and dismissed it as has having no merit. They determined that a decision had been given in respect of the second ground that the Applicant relied on in the first review. That being so they considered the application as without any foundation.

The Applicant not satisfied with that ruling, has now brought this the third application before the Supreme Court. In this application the Court is asked to review the decision in SCR 116 of 98 on grounds that the Learned Judges in SCR 116 of 98 "were more concerned in defending their own ruling and had hastily ….. considered and ruled ….. the application ….. without foundation in law. This had caused them to evade answering or ruling upon the pertinent constitutional issues ….. They had accordingly reached "erroneous conclusion of law …."

This application has been strenuously opposed by the Respondents who have argued for the striking out of the application on the basis that s.s. 18 155(2) (b) and 155 (4) of the Constitution provide no jurisdiction for this Court to entertain what is in fact a matter now finally determined. It is res judicata. That is, that the very substance of what the Applicant seeks to review does not constitute any error by the...