Joseph Yonge v Luke Niap, Acting General Manager PNG Harbours Board and Papua New Guinea Harbours Board (2001) N2101
Jurisdiction | Papua New Guinea |
Judgment Date | 22 June 2001 |
Court | National Court |
Citation | (2001) N2101 |
Year | 2001 |
Judgement Number | N2101 |
Full Title: Joseph Yonge v Luke Niap, Acting General Manager PNG Harbours Board and Papua New Guinea Harbours Board (2001) N2101
National Court: Kandakasi J
Judgment Delivered: 22 June 2001
N2101
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]
O. S. 302 of 2001
BETWEEN:
JOSEPH YONGE
Applicant/Plaintiff
AND:
LUKE NIAP, ACTING GENERAL MANAGER
PNG HARBOURS BOARD
First Respondent/Defendant
AND:
PAPUA NEW GUINEA HARBOURS BOARD
Second Respondent/Defendant
WAIGANI: KANDAKASI
2001: 6 & 20 JUNE 2001
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE — Want of Prosecution — Failure by Plaintiff and his lawyer to appear on date set by consent for hearing — Rules and the law requires prompt prosecution of such applications — Failure to comply should result in dismissal of action — Order 16 Rule 4 of the National Court Rules (Chp. 38).
ADMINISTRACTIVE LAW — Application for Leave for judicial review — Arguable case — Failure to show arguable case for review — Employment termination after charging Plaintiff with disciplinary offences and hearing the Plaintiff in his defence — Failure to demonstrate by appropriate evidence error of the Defendants — Order 16 Rule 3 of the National Court Rules (chp.38).
Cases cited:
The Application of Lutheran Church of Papua New Guinea by Evangelical Lutheran Church of Papua New Guinea Superannuation Fund [1995] PNGLR 276
An Exparte Application of Eric Gurupa for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review N856.
Peter Ipu Peipul v.Sheehan J , Mr. Ori Karapo and Ivoa Geita (consisting the Leadership Tribunal) & Ors (unreported and unnumbered judgement delivered on 25th May 2001)
Internal Revenue Commission v. National Federation of Self Employed and Small Business Limited [1982] AC 617
Ila Geno and Others v. The State [1993] PNGLR 22
Leto Darius v. Commissioner for Police and The State N2046
Application of Demas Gigimat [1992] PNGLR 122
Application of Christopher Haiveta (1998) N1783
Joe Nemambo vs. Peter Peipul SC475
Counsels:
Mr. F. Komang for the Plaintiff
Mr. T. Elemi for the Defendant
22nd June 2001
KANDAKASI, J: The Plaintiff is applying under Order 16 Rule 3 of the National Court Rules (NCRs) for leave to apply for judicial review of a decision of the Defendants terminating his employment contract. He claims that, the defendants acted in excess of jurisdiction, acted unreasonably and the decision to terminate his employment was a sever penalty. The Defendants deny these claims and argue that the Plaintiff's application does not disclose an arguable case to warrant grant of leave for review. Also, on the date set for a hearing of the application, neither the Plaintiff nor his lawyer turned up to proceed with the hearing. The Defendants argued for a dismissal of the application both for want of prosecution and on the merits for failure to disclose an arguable cases.
Issue
There are two issues for me to determine. First, whether the Plaintiff's application should be dismissed for want of prosecution. Secondly, whether there is an arguable case, for grant of leave for judicial review.
First Issue: Want of Prosecution
(a) Background
The Plaintiff issued these proceedings on the 11th of May 2001, together with a notice of motion seeking inter alia, leave for judicial review. The motion was initially returnable on the 25th of May 2001. On that day, the motion was adjourned by consent of both parties to the 6th of June 2001 for hearing. When the matter was called for hearing on that day, there was no appearance for or on behalf of the Plaintiff. Mr. Elemi, counsel for the Defendant's applied for leave to proceed ex parte and I granted him leave to do so.
Mr. Elemi applied for a dismissal of the motion and the entire proceedings for want of prosecution. He also invited the Court to dismiss the motion and the proceeding, because in his submissions, no arguable case was presented for a grant of leave for judicial review. After having heard his arguments, I reserved my ruling. This is now my ruling on that application.
(b) Want of Prosecution
Judicial review applications by their very nature call for prompt action. Order 16 Rule 4 provides that, all applications for leave for judicial review must be made promptly. Sub-rule (2) of that Rule provides for a period of four months within which to apply for leave for judicial review. Numerous authorities make it very clear that, a failure to observe this requirement may result in a refusal of an application for leave. In The Application of Lutheran Church of Papua New Guinea by Evangelical Lutheran Church of Papua New Guinea Superannuation Fund [1995] PNGLR 276, Sevua J refused an application for leave for judicial review because of delays in bring the application. A similar consequence followed in An Exparte Application of Eric Gurupa for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review N856. These cases provided examples of the consequences that can follow where there is a failure to proceed with an application for leave for review promptly, given the provisions of Order 16 Rule 4(2) of the NCRs.
For want of prosecution generally of proceedings commenced by Originating Summons, the provisions of Order 4 Rule 36 are relevant. That Rule reads:
"Want of prosecution. (5/12)
(1) Where a plaintiff makes default in complying with any order or direction as to the conduct of the proceedings, or does not prosecute the proceedings with due dispatch, the Court may stay or dismiss the proceedings.
(2) Sub-rule (1) applies, with any necessary modifications, in relation to a cross-claimant as it applies in relation to a plaintiff."
(Underling mine)
The onus is thus, placed in my view, on a plaintiff to take every step to prosecute his claim with due dispatch. A failure to do so, attracts the risk of dismissal as the ultimate penalty. The court is vested with a discretion to dismiss proceedings that do not get prosecuted promptly. I am of the view that, this discretion should be exercised quite readily in an application for leave to apply for judicial review unless, good and reasonable basis is shown by an applicant to prevent an exercise of that discretion. This view emanates from the fact that, judicial review, by their very nature, require prompt action to avoid unnecessary confusions, disruptions and or uncertainties that could be caused...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
SCA No 95 of 2013; Alex Timothy v Hon. Francis Marus, MP and Fred Kini, Chairman of PNG Land Board and Sam Taian, Thomas Bullen, Thomas Webster, George Nasiono, Maia Siaguru, as Members of the PNG Land Board and Pepi Kimas, the Secretary of the Department of Lands and Physical Planning – Department of Lands and Physical Planning and Hon. Puka Temu, MP Minister for Land and Physical Planning and The Independent State of Papua New Guinea (2014) SC1403
...in ordinary civil suits commenced by Originating Summons or Writ of Summons: see Miam v Dai (2009) N3699, Joseph Yonge v Luke Naip (2001) N2101, Kelvin Rumpia v Abaris Buri (2006) N3035, and Zachery Gelu v Sir Michael Somare (2009) N3647. The present case is one such case. In those cases, t......
-
Stanley Miam v Joe Dai, Deputy Secretary, Department of Labour & Employment and Margaret L Elias, Secretary for Department of Labour & Employment and Peter S Tsiamalili, Secretary for Department of Labour & Employment and Independent State of Papua New Guinea (2009) N3699
...Nicholas v Commonwealth New Guinea Timbers Pty Ltd [1986] PNGLR 133; Viviso Seravo v Jack Bahafo (2001) N2078; Joseph Yonge v Luke Niap (2001) N2101; John Niale v Sepik Coffee Producers Ltd (2004) N2637; Kely Kerua v Council Appeal Committee of The University of Papua New Guinea (2004) N253......
-
OS 654 OF 2008; Zachery Gelu and Isaac Lupari and Tau Liu v Sir Michael T. Somare, MP, Prime Minister & Appointing Authority Of The Commission Of Inquiry Into The Department of Finance and Maurice Sheehan, As Chief Commissioner And Justice Cathy Davani And Don Manoa As Commissioners Comprising The Commission Of Inquiry Into The Management Generally Of Public Monies By The Department Of Finance and The Independent State of Papua New Guinea (2009) N3647
...for want of prosecution. Cases cited: Attorney–General Michael Gene v Pirouz Hamidian–Rad [1999] PNGLR 444; Joseph Yonge v Luke Niap (2001) N2101; Kely Kerua v Council Appeal Committee of The University of Papua New Guinea (2004) N2534; Kelvin Rumpia v Abaris Buri (2006) N3035; Peter Makeng......
-
The Independent State of Papua New Guinea and Pepi Kimas, Secretary for Lands & Physical Planning and Dr Puka Temu, Minister for Lands & Physical Planning v Toka Enterprises Limited (2018) SC1746
...Eric Gurupa (1990) N856 Application of Evangelical Lutheran Church [1995] PNGLR 276 Pipoi v. Seravo (2001) N2120 Joseph Yonge v. Luke Niap (2001) N2101 Mision Asiki v. Manasupe Zurenuoc (2005) SC797 Kelvin Rumpia v. Abaris Buri (2006) N3035 Peter Makeng v. Timbers (PNG) Ltd (2008) N3317 Azz......
-
SCA No 95 of 2013; Alex Timothy v Hon. Francis Marus, MP and Fred Kini, Chairman of PNG Land Board and Sam Taian, Thomas Bullen, Thomas Webster, George Nasiono, Maia Siaguru, as Members of the PNG Land Board and Pepi Kimas, the Secretary of the Department of Lands and Physical Planning – Department of Lands and Physical Planning and Hon. Puka Temu, MP Minister for Land and Physical Planning and The Independent State of Papua New Guinea (2014) SC1403
...in ordinary civil suits commenced by Originating Summons or Writ of Summons: see Miam v Dai (2009) N3699, Joseph Yonge v Luke Naip (2001) N2101, Kelvin Rumpia v Abaris Buri (2006) N3035, and Zachery Gelu v Sir Michael Somare (2009) N3647. The present case is one such case. In those cases, t......
-
Stanley Miam v Joe Dai, Deputy Secretary, Department of Labour & Employment and Margaret L Elias, Secretary for Department of Labour & Employment and Peter S Tsiamalili, Secretary for Department of Labour & Employment and Independent State of Papua New Guinea (2009) N3699
...Nicholas v Commonwealth New Guinea Timbers Pty Ltd [1986] PNGLR 133; Viviso Seravo v Jack Bahafo (2001) N2078; Joseph Yonge v Luke Niap (2001) N2101; John Niale v Sepik Coffee Producers Ltd (2004) N2637; Kely Kerua v Council Appeal Committee of The University of Papua New Guinea (2004) N253......
-
OS 654 OF 2008; Zachery Gelu and Isaac Lupari and Tau Liu v Sir Michael T. Somare, MP, Prime Minister & Appointing Authority Of The Commission Of Inquiry Into The Department of Finance and Maurice Sheehan, As Chief Commissioner And Justice Cathy Davani And Don Manoa As Commissioners Comprising The Commission Of Inquiry Into The Management Generally Of Public Monies By The Department Of Finance and The Independent State of Papua New Guinea (2009) N3647
...for want of prosecution. Cases cited: Attorney–General Michael Gene v Pirouz Hamidian–Rad [1999] PNGLR 444; Joseph Yonge v Luke Niap (2001) N2101; Kely Kerua v Council Appeal Committee of The University of Papua New Guinea (2004) N2534; Kelvin Rumpia v Abaris Buri (2006) N3035; Peter Makeng......
-
The Independent State of Papua New Guinea and Pepi Kimas, Secretary for Lands & Physical Planning and Dr Puka Temu, Minister for Lands & Physical Planning v Toka Enterprises Limited (2018) SC1746
...Eric Gurupa (1990) N856 Application of Evangelical Lutheran Church [1995] PNGLR 276 Pipoi v. Seravo (2001) N2120 Joseph Yonge v. Luke Niap (2001) N2101 Mision Asiki v. Manasupe Zurenuoc (2005) SC797 Kelvin Rumpia v. Abaris Buri (2006) N3035 Peter Makeng v. Timbers (PNG) Ltd (2008) N3317 Azz......