In the Matter of Benson Gegeyo, Margaret Misso, Brian Bell and Sir Ravu Henao v The Minister for Lands and Physical Planning [1987] PNGLR 331

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Amet J
• Judgment Date: 19 October 1987
• Citation: [1987] PNGLR 331
• Court: National Court
• Year: 1987
• Judgement Number: N635

Full Title: In the Matter of Benson Gegeyo, Margaret Misso, Brian Bell and Sir Ravu Henao v The Minister for Lands and Physical Planning [1987] PNGLR 331

National Court: Amet J

Judgment Delivered: 19 October 1987

1 Judicial review—Land Board—revocation of appointment

2 [The Land Act (Ch185), s6(3), empowers the relevant Minister to make appointments to the Land Boards "for such periods to act in relation to land in such localities as he thinks necessary". The Acts Interpretation Act (Ch2), s36, provides as follows:

(1) Where a statutory provision confers a power to make an appointment, the power includes power, subject to Subsection (2), to remove or suspend a person so appointed.

(2) The power provided for by Subsection (1) is exercisable only subject to any conditions to which the exercise of the original power of appointments was subject.

On an application for judicial review of the decision of the Minister to revoke four appointments to the Land Board of the National Capital District just 11 weeks after the appointments were made where the appointees were merely notified by letter that the "Minister has revoked your applications . . .".]

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW—Judicial review of Administrative Acts—Natural justice—Duty to observe—Revocation of appointment to statutory board—Scope of power of revocation—Duty to give reasons—Where duty to give opportunity to be heard in defence—Revocation of appointment to Land Board—No reasons given—Decision reviewed—Land Act (Ch185), s6(3).

STATUTES—Interpretation Act—Statutory powers of appointment—No power to revoke or suspend appointment—Interpretation Act applied—Land Act (Ch185), s6(3)—Interpretation Act (Ch2), s36(1), (2).

REAL PROPERTY—Land Boards—Appointment of members—Power to revoke appointments—Scope of power—Application of principles of natural justice to exercise of power—Land Act (Ch185), s6(3)—Interpretation Act (Ch2), s36(1), (2).

The Land Act (Ch185), s6(3), empowers the relevant Minister to make appointments to the Land Boards "for such periods to act in relation to land in such localities as he thinks necessary".

The Interpretation Act (Ch2), s36, provides as follows:

"(1) Where a statutory provision confers a power to make an appointment, the power includes power, subject to Subsection (2), to remove or suspend a person so appointed.

(2) The power provided for by Subsection (1) is exercisable only subject to any conditions to which the exercise of the original power of appointments was subject."

On an application for judicial review of the decision of the Minister to revoke four appointments to the Land Board of the National Capital District just 11 weeks after the appointments were made where the appointees were merely notified by letter that the "Minister has revoked your applications . . . ".

Held:

(1) S36 of the Interpretation Act was to be applied to s6(3) of the Land Act.

(2) Accordingly, the Minister had power to revoke or suspend an appointment made under s6(3) of the Land Act; such power to be exercised for good cause according to law.

(3) The power to revoke or suspend an appointment, being a decision affecting the status of persons, the Minister was required to observe the principles of natural justice, to the extent at least of giving advice or notice in writing of the reasons for his proposed decision and if those reasons were likely to reflect adversely on the character, integrity or reputation of that person, then by giving that person an opportunity of being heard in his defence.

General Electric Co Ltd v Price Commission [1975] ICR 1 at 12.

(4) If an authority purporting to exercise statutory powers gives no reasons in a case where it may reasonably be expected to do so, the court may infer that it has no good reason for reaching its conclusions and may act accordingly.

(5) In the circumstances in the absence of any reasons at all for the revocation of the appointments, the Minister's decision should be reviewed and as the reasons provided at the hearing were without substance or merit the ministerial decision should be revoked.

Cases Cited

The following case is the only case cited in the judgment:

General Electric Co Ltd v Price Commission [1975] ICR 1.

Application for judicial review

This was an application for judicial review of a decision of the Minister for Lands and Physical Planning to revoke four appointments to the Land Board of the National Capital District.

___________________________

Amet J: This is an application by the plaintiffs seeking judicial review of the decision of the Minister for Lands and Physical Planning affecting the four plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were appointed as members of the Land Board for the National Capital District on 2 April 1987 for a fixed term expiring on 31 March 1988. The appointments were effected by publication of the Instrument of Appointment in the National Gazette No G20 on 2 April 1987. On 22 June 1987 each of the plaintiffs was advised by a letter signed by Boe Mea acting Chairman of Papua New Guinea Land Board of the revocation of their appointments by the Minister. Each of them was advised by separate letter in the following terms:

"It is advised that the Minister has revoked your appointment as a member of the National Capital District Land Board under s6(3) of the Land Act (Ch185).

A notice of the effect will be published in the next of the National Gazette."

The Instrument of Revocation of appointments was published in the National Gazette No G40 on 25 June 1987. That notice revoked the appointments of the four plaintiffs and in their stead appointed four other persons to replace them on the National Capital District Land Board.

No other advice was given to any of the plaintiffs as to the reason or reasons for the revocation of their respective appointments up to the time of the hearing of this application. It was just on two months, three weeks from the time of their appointments to the time of the purported revocation of their appointments on 22 June 1987. The plaintiffs contend that their appointments to the Land Board for the National Capital District are valid appointments and that there are no sufficient grounds for the purported revocation of their appointments prior to the expiration of their term of office.

The plaintiffs claim therefore, that this Court grant relief by declaring that they were duly appointed as members of the National Capital District Land Board and are entitled to hold office until the expiration of the term of their appointments; secondly, an injunction restraining the Minister for Lands and Physical Planning from revoking the appointments; and thirdly, an injunction restraining the said Minister from appointing any persons to replace them on the Land Board for the National Capital District.

The defendant Minister at the time Micah Wes who is now no longer in Parliament filed an affidavit in response and in defence of this application on 3 August 1987. That is the only material and evidence upon which the defendant seeks to defend the decision now being challenged. I set out the whole of that former Minister's affidavit from par (2):

"2. I revoke the appointment of the members of the PNG Land Board and the National Capital District Land Board on 12th June, 1987.

3. I had three (3) reasons for revoking the membership of the two (2) Land Boards stated above in No. 2.

4. First (1st) reason is that I found that there were more than one (1) members from one organisation which had showed the Board's decision to show in favour of a particular section of the community thus creating a monopolistic situation.

5. Secondly there were a large Section of the Community at grass roots level which were missing out as a result of the above—see No.

4. To have a balance on the Board I decided to appoint members from these Section of the Community to ensure that they do get a fair hearing. To do that I had to revoke the then existing appointments.

6. The then Board members had also ventured into the procedure aspects during meetings without really concentrating on the proposal. I find this really unnecessary because this has resulted in unnecessary build up of backlog within the Department. If the Board cannot concentrate on the proposal before it and wish to judge the decision of the Department by going into the procedure then I will not entertain that.

7. For the reasons provided above I had the authority under s36 of the Interpretation Act (Ch2) to revoke the appointment of the membership of the NCD Land Board and the PNG Land Board.

8. I...