SCM 8 OF 2007; Tamali Angoya for himself and on behalf of members of his Tabu Clan and Jami Contractors Limited and Himuni Homoko for himself and on behalf of Members of his Nguane Clan v Tugupa Association Inc. and Valentine KAMBORI as Chairman of Expenditure Implementation Committee And Secretary For National Planning And Rural Development and Rendle Ruma, Secretary Department of Petroleum & Energy and William Duma as Acting Minister for Petroleum and Energy and Teup Goledu, Registrar Of Companies as Representative of Defunct Company, Petroleum Exploration Joint Venture Limited and Energy Resources Hides Ltd and Muller Range Property Ltd and Hides Energy And Petroleum Resources Limited (2009) SC978
Jurisdiction | Papua New Guinea |
Judge | Sakora, Manuhu & Hartshorn JJ |
Judgment Date | 12 March 2009 |
Court | Supreme Court |
Citation | (2009) SC978 |
Year | 2009 |
Judgement Number | SC978 |
Full Title: SCM 8 OF 2007; Tamali Angoya for himself and on behalf of members of his Tabu Clan and Jami Contractors Limited and Himuni Homoko for himself and on behalf of Members of his Nguane Clan v Tugupa Association Inc. and Valentine KAMBORI as Chairman of Expenditure Implementation Committee And Secretary For National Planning And Rural Development and Rendle Ruma, Secretary Department of Petroleum & Energy and William Duma as Acting Minister for Petroleum and Energy and Teup Goledu, Registrar Of Companies as Representative of Defunct Company, Petroleum Exploration Joint Venture Limited and Energy Resources Hides Ltd and Muller Range Property Ltd and Hides Energy And Petroleum Resources Limited (2009) SC978
Supreme Court: Sakora, Manuhu & Hartshorn JJ
Judgment Delivered: 12 March 2009
SC978
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE
SCM 8 OF 2007
BETWEEN:
TAMALI ANGOYA for himself and on behalf of members of his Tabu Clan
First Appellant
AND:
JAMI CONTRACTORS LIMITED
Second Appellant
AND:
HIMUNI HOMOKO for himself and on behalf of Members of his Nguane Clan
Third Appellant
AND:
TUGUPA ASSOCIATION INC.
First Respondent
AND:
VALENTINE KAMBORI as Chairman of EXPENDITURE IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND SECRETARY FOR NATIONAL PLANNING AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Second Respondent
AND:
RENDLE RUMA, Secretary Department of Petroleum & Energy
Third Respondent
AND:
WILLIAM DUMA as Acting Minister for Petroleum and Energy
Fourth Respondent
AND:
TEUP GOLEDU, REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES as Representative of Defunct Company, PETROLEUM EXPLORATION JOINT VENTURE LIMITED
Fifth Respondent
AND:
ENERGY RESOURCES HIDES LTD
Sixth Respondent
AND:
MULLER RANGE PROPERTY LTD
Seventh Respondent
AND:
HIDES ENERGY AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES LIMITED
Eight Respondent
Waigani: Sakora, Manuhu & Hartshorn JJ.
2008: 3rd July,
2009: 12th March
Application to Dismiss for Abuse of Process - Inherent Jurisdiction –Section 17 Supreme Court Act - Appellant to be a “person” whose interests are affected by or who is aggrieved by the Court Order being appealed
Facts:
This is an appeal against a National Court Consent Order that discontinued proceedings seeking Judicial Review. The appellants were not parties in the National Court proceedings. Supported by the second to eight respondents, Energy Resources Hides Ltd applies to dismiss the appeal pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as it is an abuse of process and for want of prosecution.
Held:
1. There is nothing in the consent order that is capable of affecting the substantive interests of any of the appellants
2. The appellants are not able to show that their interests are affected or that they are legitimately aggrieved or that they have a real and direct interest in the subject matter of the consent order;
3. The appellants are not entitled to bring this appeal as they are not affected or aggrieved by the decision appealed
4. Due to the above and pursuant to this Court’s inherent jurisdiction it is ordered that the appeal is dismissed.
Cases cited:
Kitogara Holdings Ltd & Others v. NCDIC [1988-89] PNGLR 346
Don Polye v. Jimson Papaki & Ors (2000) SC 637
Porgera Joint Venture & Anor v. Joshua Siapu Yako (2008) SC 916
Counsel:
Mr. J. Haiara, for the Appellants
Mr. M. Paya, for the Second Respondent
Mr. P. Peraki, for the Third and Fourth Respondents
Mr. D. Kamen, for the Fifth Respondent
Mr. A. Baniyamai, for the Sixth Respondent
Mr. D. Kop, for the Seventh and Eighth Respondents
12 March, 2009
1. BY THE COURT: This is an appeal against a National Court consent order that discontinued proceedings seeking judicial review. The appellants were not parties to the National Court proceedings.
2. Energy Resources Hides Ltd, the sixth respondent (Energy Resources) applies to dismiss this appeal pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, as it is an abuse of process and for want of prosecution. The application is supported by the second to eighth respondents. There was no appearance on behalf of the first respondent.
3. The appellants oppose the application on the basis that:
a) as this is an appeal filed pursuant to Order 10 Supreme Court Rules, the usual Supreme Court rules concerning abuse of process and want of prosecution do not apply (appellants’ first argument).
b) the prosecution of this appeal is awaiting a hearing of an objection to competency and an outstanding decision of this Court as to whether interim relief should be extended (appellants’ second argument).
4. As to the appellants’ first argument, as Energy Resources is relying on the inherent jurisdiction of this Court the issue of whether the usual Supreme Court rules apply to an Order 10 appeal does not arise.
5. As to the appellants’ second argument, the fact that a single judge of this Court has not delivered a decision concerning whether interim relief already granted should be extended, is not a reason to delay the prosecution of the substantive appeal. That decision would only perhaps, have some bearing on the appellants’ preparation of the substantive appeal if the interim relief were not extended. The appellants, in such a circumstance would no doubt wish to prosecute the appeal most urgently.
6. As to the hearing of the objections to competency, as mentioned at the hearing by Sakora J., they could be heard at the hearing of the appeal. There is no need or requirement that they be heard before this application.
Abuse of process
7. Energy Resources submits that this appeal has not been brought in good faith and this gives rise to an abuse of the Court’s process. Before considering this particular issue, it is necessary to give consideration to how this appeal was commenced and by whom.
8. As referred to, the appellants were not parties to the National Court proceedings in which the order appealed was made. The appeal is brought pursuant to s. 17 Supreme Court Act which relevantly provides:
“Where a person desires to appeal to or to obtain leave to appeal from the Supreme Court, he shall give notice of appeal……within 40 days after the date of the judgment in question……”
9. In Kitogara Holdings Ltd & Others v. NCDIC [1988-89] PNGLR 346, this Court in a majority decision, held amongst others that s. 17 Supreme Court Act operates so as to provide a right of appeal to any ‘person’ whose interests are affected by or who is aggrieved by the order of the court and who might have been joined as a party to the proceedings. It is apparently on the basis of this decision that this appeal has been brought.
10. The National Court order appealed in Kitogara (supra) was an order made by consent in judicial review proceedings. This consent order provided for a declaration that previous alienation of land was null and void, a restraint on dealing until land was gazetted and zoned under certain enactments and a referral back to the Land Board for further consideration of all applications.
11. Clearly the subject of this consent order was of a substantive nature and was likely to affect substantive rights. It was more than a mere discontinuance of proceedings for judicial review.
12. The fact that a person can only appeal to the Supreme Court if he is directly affected by the order being appealed, was acknowledged in Porgera Joint Venture & Anor v. Joshua Siapu Yako (2008) SC 916; a recent decision of this Court. In that case, the Court, after referring to what was held in Kitogara (supra) as to s. 17 Supreme Court Act stated:
“Nothing in the Supreme Court Act defines who may appeal. No phrase...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Reference by the Ombudsman Commission pursuant to Constitution, Section 19(1) re the Public Money Management Regularisation ACT 2017 (2020) SC1944
...Review No 1 of 1990; Re Recount of Votes [1990] PNGLR 441 Steven Turik v Mathew Gubag (2013) N5132 Tamali Angoya v Tugupa Association Inc (2009) SC978 Teine v University of Goroka (2019) SC1881 The State v Francis Kumo Gene [1991] PNGLR 33 The State v NTN Pty Ltd [1992] PNGLR 1 Tzen Plantat......
-
Mineral Resources CMCA Holdings Limited v Ok Tedi Fly River Development Foundation Limited (2018) SC1752
...Punagi v Pacific Plantation Ltd (2011) SC1153 Sakaraias Akap v Kenneth Korakali (2012) SC1179 Tamali Angoya v Tugupa Association Inc (2009) SC978 Telikom PNG Ltd v ICCC (2008) SC906 Valu v Ngangan (2018) SC1723 Van Der Kreek v Van Der Kreek [1979] PNGLR Yakham v Merriam [1998] PNGLR 555 OBJ......
-
Louis Medaing and 1083 others v Ramu Nico Management (MCC) Limited and The Independent State of Papua New Guinea and Dr Wari Iamo in his capacity as the Director of the Environment (2011) SC1157
...Telikom PNG Ltd v ICCC (2008) SC906; Eddie Tarsie v Ramu Nico Management (MCC) Ltd (2010) N3987; Tamali Angoya v Tugupa Association Inc. (2009) SC978; Ronald Rimbao v Don Pandan (2011) SC1098 Overseas Cases D. A. Christie Pty Ltd v. Baker [1996] 2 VR 582; Nominal Defendant v. Manning [2000]......
-
Talibe Hegele, Ken Tiliyaso, Tamu Angoea, Hibura Tandabe, Hame Andrew, Agori Tege, Mark Philip, For Themselves And On Behalf Of The Members of the Igibu Moligo, Igibu Agia, Dara Dabara, Igibu Mapia, Igibu Mamage, Dara Angoya, Dara Elabe, Igibu Wayeai, Igibu Budara Sub-Clans of Yumbi Clan of Moran v Tony kila for Himself and on behalf of the Members of the Nano Webo Clan and Andrew Elabe (2011) SC1143
...v Chief Collector of Taxes [1988–89] PNGLR 522; Application by Herman Joseph Leahy (2006) SC855; Tamali Angoya v Tugupa Association Inc. (2009) SC978; Alphonse Tay, Chief Executive Officer Port Moresby General Hospital v Newcombe Gerau (2011) SC1097; Independent State of Papua New Guinea v ......
-
Reference by the Ombudsman Commission pursuant to Constitution, Section 19(1) re the Public Money Management Regularisation ACT 2017 (2020) SC1944
...Review No 1 of 1990; Re Recount of Votes [1990] PNGLR 441 Steven Turik v Mathew Gubag (2013) N5132 Tamali Angoya v Tugupa Association Inc (2009) SC978 Teine v University of Goroka (2019) SC1881 The State v Francis Kumo Gene [1991] PNGLR 33 The State v NTN Pty Ltd [1992] PNGLR 1 Tzen Plantat......
-
Mineral Resources CMCA Holdings Limited v Ok Tedi Fly River Development Foundation Limited (2018) SC1752
...Punagi v Pacific Plantation Ltd (2011) SC1153 Sakaraias Akap v Kenneth Korakali (2012) SC1179 Tamali Angoya v Tugupa Association Inc (2009) SC978 Telikom PNG Ltd v ICCC (2008) SC906 Valu v Ngangan (2018) SC1723 Van Der Kreek v Van Der Kreek [1979] PNGLR Yakham v Merriam [1998] PNGLR 555 OBJ......
-
Louis Medaing and 1083 others v Ramu Nico Management (MCC) Limited and The Independent State of Papua New Guinea and Dr Wari Iamo in his capacity as the Director of the Environment (2011) SC1157
...Telikom PNG Ltd v ICCC (2008) SC906; Eddie Tarsie v Ramu Nico Management (MCC) Ltd (2010) N3987; Tamali Angoya v Tugupa Association Inc. (2009) SC978; Ronald Rimbao v Don Pandan (2011) SC1098 Overseas Cases D. A. Christie Pty Ltd v. Baker [1996] 2 VR 582; Nominal Defendant v. Manning [2000]......
-
Talibe Hegele, Ken Tiliyaso, Tamu Angoea, Hibura Tandabe, Hame Andrew, Agori Tege, Mark Philip, For Themselves And On Behalf Of The Members of the Igibu Moligo, Igibu Agia, Dara Dabara, Igibu Mapia, Igibu Mamage, Dara Angoya, Dara Elabe, Igibu Wayeai, Igibu Budara Sub-Clans of Yumbi Clan of Moran v Tony kila for Himself and on behalf of the Members of the Nano Webo Clan and Andrew Elabe (2011) SC1143
...v Chief Collector of Taxes [1988–89] PNGLR 522; Application by Herman Joseph Leahy (2006) SC855; Tamali Angoya v Tugupa Association Inc. (2009) SC978; Alphonse Tay, Chief Executive Officer Port Moresby General Hospital v Newcombe Gerau (2011) SC1097; Independent State of Papua New Guinea v ......