Silas Mareha v The Chairman—Redundancy Monitoring Committee, The Secretary for Department of Works, The Secretary for Department of Personnel Management and The Independent State of Papua New Guinea (1999) N1895

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Kirriwom J
• Judgment Date: 18 June 1999
• Court: National Court
• Citation: [1999] PNGLR 517
• Year: 1999
• Judgement Number: N1895

National Court: Kirriwom J

Judgment Delivered: 18 June 1999

N1895

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

(In the National Court of Justice)

OS No. 67 of 1999

Between:

SILAS MAREHA

(Applicant/Plaintiff)

And:

THE CHAIRMAN - REDUNDANCY

MONITORING COMMITTEE

(First Defendant/Respondent)

And:

THE SECRETARY FOR DEPARTMENT

OF WORKS

(Second Defendant)

And:

THE SECRETARY FOR DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

(Third Defendant/Respondent)

And:

THE INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA

NEW GUINEA

(Fourth Defendant/Respondent)

GOROKA: KIRRIWOM J

1999: 11 & 18 June

PNG Case Cited:

The Independent State of Papua New Guinea vs Lohia Sisia [1987] PNGLR 102

Counsels:

Mr K. Kot for the Plaintiff

No appearance for the Defendants

18 June 1999

RULING

KIRRIWOM J: The applicant was retrenched from the Public Service due to budgetary constraints on 21st December 1995. He was told that as the result of tight financial situation and necessary cut-backs in many areas, his position was therefore made redundant. He was a Senior Artisan - Grade 3 with Works & Supply Department - Goroka. Plaintiff/Applicant accepted retrenchment.

Three and a half years later he is seeking leave to apply for judicial review because he says that he should not have been retrenched as his position was not made redundant. That position still remains and someone else is occupying it. He also says that the purported redundancy exercise was in breach of a Memorandum of Agreement between Public Service Commission and Public Employees Association as no redundancy notice was given to Plaintiff and he was not interviewed. The whole scheme was someone else’s idea who placed his name on the redundancy list and then had him retrenched as redundant.

However without going into the substance of the Plaintiff’s complaint, the issue now is, has the applicant satisfied the requirements of Order 16 Rule 3 for leave to be granted. O. 16 r. 3 provides that an application for judicial review shall...