Thadeus Kambanei v The National Executive Council & 5 Others (2006) N3064

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Court: National Court
• Date: 10 April 2006
• Citation: (2006) N3064
• Docket Number: Os No. 199 of 2006 (Jr)
• Year: 2006

Full Title: Os No. 199 of 2006 (Jr); Thadeus Kambanei v The National Executive Council & 5 Others (2006) N3064

National Court: Injia, DCJ

Judgment Delivered: 10 April 2006

JUDICIAL REVIEW—Administrative action—Decision of National Executive Council to suspend Departmental Head on disciplinary grounds—Application for Leave to apply for judicial review—Granted—Application for interim injunctions—Whether interim orders which restores the applicant to his position pending the determination of the substantive application should be granted—Relevant Principles—Application refused—National Court Rules. O16, r3(8).

Cases cited in the judgment:

Francis Damem v Minister for Public Service & Ors N2730 (2004); Yama Group of Companies Ltd & 3 others v PNG Power Ltd (2005) N2831;

___________________________

RULING

1. INJIA, DCJ: The Plaintiff applies for leave for judicial review of the Sixth Defendant’s decision (NEC) made on 24 March 2006 to suspend him from office as Secretary for the Department of Finance. If leave is granted the Plaintiff applies for interim mandatory injunction to prevent the service of the suspension notice on him and other consequential orders which would result in him being restored in office pending the determination of the substantive application. The application for leave is brought under O16, r3 of the National Court Rules (NCR) and the application for interim mandatory injunction is made under O16, r3 (8) and principles of the common law. The defendants contest both applications.

2. At the hearing, the plaintiff sought to rely on various affidavits, some of which were annexed copies of correspondences exchanged between the Plaintiff’s lawyer and the Public Service Commission (PSC), the National Executive Council (NEC) and Public Service Minister (The Minister), the PSC and the Minister. The affidavits also referred to details of communications exchanged between the plaintiff’s lawyer and the Secretary for NEC.

3. The defendants objected to the facts submitted to the court by the defendants’ counsel. The Defendants objected to the admissibility of all facts, except only two, set out in the Plaintiff’s Statement in support of application for leave filed under O16, r3 (the Statement) and additional facts, notice of which was given in writing by the Plaintiff’s counsel to the defendants’ counsel. The main basis for the objections were that in the case of the information and documents from the NEC, they were obtained in breach of the privilege accorded by s51 (1) (b) of the Constitution. In respect of information and documents released by the PSC, they were obtained in breach of s3, s7 and s8 of the Attorney-General Act 1989 and Rule 10 of the Lawyers Professional Conduct Rules...