Obert Laka v Stan Nekital
Jurisdiction | Papua New Guinea |
Judgment Date | 19 October 2016 |
Citation | (2016) N6557 |
Year | 2016 |
Court | National Court |
Judgement Number | N6557 |
Full : OS 456 of 2015; Obert Laka, Thomas Tamanok, Frank Reto, Anton Tamanok for themselves and members of their Anos Clan of Maragon Village whose names appear in Schedule 1 of the Originating Summons as well as all other landowners whose names appear in the said Schedule 1 and William Jone, Stephen Lasim, Len Neveil, Tilum Gemon for themselves and members of their Kes Kokomagieot Clan of Maragon Village whose names appear in Schedule 1 of the Originating Summons as well as all other landowners whose names appear in the said Schedule 1 v Stan Nekital, Registrar of Tenements and Mineral Resources Authority and Hon. Byron Chan, Minister for Mining and the Independent State of Papua New Guinea and Nord Australex Nominees (PNG) Ltd and Simberi Gold Company Limited (2016) N6557
National Court: Hartshorn J
Judgment Delivered: 19 October 2016
N6557
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]
OS 456 of 2015
BETWEEN
OBERT LAKA, THOMAS TAMANOK, FRANK RETO, ANTON TAMANOK for themselves and members of their Anos Clan of Maragon Village whose names appear in Schedule 1 of the Originating Summons as well as all other landowners whose names appear in the said Schedule 1
First Plaintiffs
AND
WILLIAM JONE, STEPHEN LASIM, LEN NEVEIL, TILUM GEMON for themselves and members of their Kes Kokomagieot Clan of Maragon Village whose names appear in Schedule 1 of the Originating Summons as well as all other landowners whose names appear in the said Schedule 1
Second Plaintiffs
AND
STAN NEKITAL, Registrar of Tenements
First Defendant
AND
MINERAL RESOURCES AUTHORITY
Second Defendant
AND
HON. BYRON CHAN, Minister for Mining
Third Defendant
AND
THE INDEPENDENT STATE OF
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
Fourth Defendant
AND
NORD AUSTRALEX NOMINEES (PNG) LIMITED
Fifth Defendant
AND
SIMBERI GOLD COMPANY LIMITED
Sixth Defendant
Waigani: Hartshorn J
2015: 21st December
2016: 19th October
Application to dismiss proceeding
Cases:
Bernard Kosie v. John Kapi Natto (2015) N6263
Bernard Kosie v. John Kapi Natto (2016) unreported SCA 55/15 delivered 6/5/16
H. Stanke & Sons Pty Ltd v. O’Meara [2007] SASC 246
Kerry Lerro v. Stagg & Ors (2006) N3050
Louis Lucian Siu v. Wasime Land Group Incorporated (2011) SC1107
Mamun Investment Ltd v. Onda Koim (2015) SC1409
Mt Hagen Urban Local Level Government v. Sek No. 15 (2009) SC1007
Puri Ruing v. Allan Marat (2012) N4672
Rabaul Shipping Ltd v. Rupen (2008) N3289
Takori v. Yagari & Ors (2008) SC905
Wan Global Limited v. Luxurflex Limited (2012) SC1199
Counsel:
Mr. R. Manrai, for the Plaintiffs
Mr. A. Mana, for the Fifth and Sixth Defendants
19th October 2016
1. HARTSHORN J: This is a decision on an application to dismiss this proceeding. The application is made by the fifth and sixth defendants Nord Australex Nominees (PNG) Ltd (Nord Australex) and Simberi Gold Company Ltd (Applicants). It is opposed by the plaintiffs. The application is made pursuant to Order 12 Rules 1 and 40 National Court Rules on the basis that no reasonable cause of action is disclosed, the proceeding is frivolous or vexatious and that the proceeding is an abuse of process of the court.
Background
2. The plaintiffs, comprising persons described as landowners and members of the Anos and Kes Kokomagieot Clans of Simberi Island, Kavieng, New Ireland Province, seek by way of originating summons, amongst others, declaratory relief to the effect that the initial grant of an Exploration Licence to Nord Australex over their customary land and an application for its extension are unlawful and null and void.
This application
3. The Applicants contend that this proceeding should be dismissed as:
a) the relief sought as to the initial grant of the Exploration Licence is statute barred, as Exploration Licence 609 was granted in May 1985;
b) the relief sought as to the extension of the Exploration Licence is premature as the application for its extension is in progress and has not been completed. If an extension is granted and the plaintiffs take issue with such a grant, they can challenge such a grant by judicial review;
c) this proceeding concerns amongst others, a dispute as to ownership of customary land in respect of which the court does not have jurisdiction;
d) the relevant provisions of the Mining Act 1992 provides an exclusive process to be followed concerning any compensation claims, and that process has been exhausted in respect of the Exploration Licence;
4. The plaintiffs contend that the proceeding should not be dismissed as:
a) the plaintiffs have only recently become aware that their land is the subject of an exploration license. They were not given the opportunity to raise objections to the Exploration Licence and so seek to nullify it;
b) a time bar does not apply in this instance as the plaintiffs were not aware of their land being the subject of an exploration license;
c) this proceeding does not concern a dispute as to the ownership of customary land and so this court does have jurisdiction.
Law
5. As to order 12 Rule 1 National Court Rules, this provision in essence allows the court at any stage of the proceedings on the application of any party, to make such orders as the nature of the case requires notwithstanding that the applicant does not make a claim for those orders in the originating process.
6. As to Order 12 Rule 40 National Court Rules, There are numerous authorities in respect of the principles which apply to applications under Order 12 Rule 40 National Court Rules and I refer to the following cases in this regard: Kerry Lerro v. Stagg & Ors (2006) N3050, Takori v. Yagari & Ors (2008) SC905, Mt Hagen Urban Local Level Government v. Sek No. 15 (2009) SC1007 and Louis Lucian Siu v. Wasime Land Group Incorporated (2011) SC1107. The Court in Mount Hagen v. Sek (supra) in paragraphs 27 to 30 conveniently sets out the requirements of Order 12 Rule 40 (1) (a), (b) and (c) as follows:
“27. The terms “vexatious”, “frivolous”, “abuse of the process of the Court” and “reasonable cause of action” under O.12 r.40 of the National Court Rules have been judicially considered, defined and expounded in a number of decisions in both the National and Supreme Courts. These cases include Ronny Wabia v. BP Exploration Co. Limited & 2 Others [1998] PNGLR 8 (N1697); PNG Forest Products Pty Ltd and Another v. The State and Genia [1992] PNGLR 85; Gabriel Apio Irafawe v. Yauwe Riyong (1996) N1915; Eliakim Laki and 167 Others v. Maurice Alulaku and Others (2002) N2001; Kiee Toap v. The Independent State of Papua New Guinea & Another (2004) N2766; Kerry Lerro trading as Hulu Hara Investments Limited v. Philip Stagg, Valentine Kambori & The State (2006) N3050; Philip Takori & Others v. Simon Yagari & 2 Others (2008) SC 905. These cases say the same thing.
28. The law with regard to an application for dismissal of proceedings based on O.12 r.40 is settled in our jurisdiction. We note that the principles are succinctly set out in Kerry Lerro’s case (supra) and which has more recently been approved and applied by the Supreme Court in Philip Takori’s case (supra).
29. The phrase ‘disclosing a reasonable cause of action’ consists of two parts; cause of action and form of action. A cause of action is defined as a legal right or form of action known to law whereby a plaintiff in a statement of claim must plead all necessary facts and legal elements or ingredients to establish or prove his claim. The principles stated by these cases can be summarized as follows:
(i) A plaintiff or claimant should not be driven from the judgment seat in a summary manner and that the Court should be cautious and slow in exercising its discretionary power.
(ii) The Court has an inherent jurisdiction to protect and safeguard its processes from abuse.
(iii) The purpose of O.12 r.40, is to give the Court power to terminate actions or claims which are plainly frivolous or vexatious or untenable.
(iv) A frivolous claim is one that is characterized as a claim that is plainly and obviously untenable, that cannot possibly succeed and bound to fail if it proceeds to trial.
(v) A vexatious claim is one that is said to be a sham and cannot succeed where it seeks to merely harass the opposing party and put that party to unnecessary trouble and expense in defending or proving the claim.
30. In an application under O.12 r.40 of the NCR, the Court may dismiss a proceeding or action where it is satisfied that the pleading in the statement of claim is seriously wanting where a necessary fact or legal element has not been pleaded.”
Consideration
7. I consider first whether the declaration seeking that the initial grant of the Exploration Licence is unlawful and therefore null and void, is statute barred.
8. Counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that s. 16 Frauds and Limitations Act 1988 did not apply in this instance as the plaintiffs did not become aware of the existence of the Exploration Licence until recently, and not more than six years ago. No issue was taken by the plaintiffs, as I understand, with the Frauds and Limitations Act 1988 not applying on the basis that the relief that is sought is by way of declaration and that declaratory...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
WS 1014 OF 2017; Charles Osi for himself and on behalf of the fifty-three (53) individual clan leaders whose consent and authority is annexed as Schedule A to this Statement of Claim v Joseph Sungi in his capacity as Custodian for Trust Land and Bewani Palm Oil Development Limited and Bewani Oil Palm Plantations Limited (Third Defendant/Cross Claimant) and Hon. Douglas Tomuriesa, MP, in his capacity as the Minister for Forests and the Independent State of Papua New Guinea (Fifth Defendant/First Cross Defendant) (2019) N8058
...Michael Gene v.Hamidian- Rad [1999] PNGLR 444 Mt Hagen Urban Local Level Government v. Sek No. 15 (2009) SC1007 Obert Laka v. Stan Nekital (2016) N6557 Paul Eddie v. Bill Kirokim (2012) N4932 Paul Tohian v. Tau Liu (1998) SC566 PNG Forest Products Pty Ltd v. State [1992] PNGLR 85 Puri Ruing......
-
Dicicel (PNG) Ltd v Alex Tongayu
...N4672 Wan Global Limited v. Luxurflex Limited (2012) SC1199 Bernard Kosie v. John Kapi Natto (2015) N6263 Obert Laka v. Stan Nekital (2016) N6557 Amos Ere v. National Housing Corporation (2016) N6515 Bernard Kosie v. John Kapi Natto (2016) unreported SCA 55/15 delivered 6/5/16 Overseas Case......
-
WS 1014 OF 2017; Charles Osi for himself and on behalf of the fifty-three (53) individual clan leaders whose consent and authority is annexed as Schedule A to this Statement of Claim v Joseph Sungi in his capacity as Custodian for Trust Land and Bewani Palm Oil Development Limited and Bewani Oil Palm Plantations Limited (Third Defendant/Cross Claimant) and Hon. Douglas Tomuriesa, MP, in his capacity as the Minister for Forests and the Independent State of Papua New Guinea (Fifth Defendant/First Cross Defendant) (2019) N8058
...Michael Gene v.Hamidian- Rad [1999] PNGLR 444 Mt Hagen Urban Local Level Government v. Sek No. 15 (2009) SC1007 Obert Laka v. Stan Nekital (2016) N6557 Paul Eddie v. Bill Kirokim (2012) N4932 Paul Tohian v. Tau Liu (1998) SC566 PNG Forest Products Pty Ltd v. State [1992] PNGLR 85 Puri Ruing......
-
Dicicel (PNG) Ltd v Alex Tongayu
...N4672 Wan Global Limited v. Luxurflex Limited (2012) SC1199 Bernard Kosie v. John Kapi Natto (2015) N6263 Obert Laka v. Stan Nekital (2016) N6557 Amos Ere v. National Housing Corporation (2016) N6515 Bernard Kosie v. John Kapi Natto (2016) unreported SCA 55/15 delivered 6/5/16 Overseas Case......