Application Under Section 155(2) (B) of the Constitution and In The Matter of Part VIII of the Organic Law on National and Local Level Government Elections; Wari James Vele v Powes Parkop (2008) SC945

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Date: 30 October 2008
• Citation: (2008) SC945
• Docket Number: SC REVIEW No. 51 of 2007
• Court: Supreme Court
• Year: 2008

Full Title: SC REVIEW No. 51 of 2007; Application Under Section 155(2) (B) of the Constitution and In The Matter of Part VIII of the Organic Law on National and Local Level Government Elections; Wari James Vele v Powes Parkop (2008) SC945

Supreme Court: Davani, Lay and Hartshorn JJ

Judgment Delivered: 30 October 2008

SUPREME COURT - CIVIL - Election Petition Review Rules - Rules 5/1/7/, 5/10/30 and 5/10/32 - application for leave not made within 14 days of decision - no application filed for extension of time or to dispense with Rule - application pursuant to Rule 5/10/32 made in the course of submissions - Considerations for the application of Rule 5/10/32 discussed.

Facts

The Respondent applies to strike out the Applicant's application for leave to review the decision of the National Court which dismissed the Applicant's petition against the election of the Respondent as governor of the National Capital District in the 2007 National Elections.

Held

1. An application for leave to review a decision on an election petition not filed, served and moved before a judge within 14 days of the decision sought to be reviewed, where extension of time is not granted within that 14 days, is rendered incompetent by the Rules, subject to any application under Rule 5/10/32.

2. The purpose of the Election Petition Review Rules is:

a) not to treat an election petition review as an ordinary matter but as a special matter requiring the applicant's constant and detailed attention;

b) to closely manage the review process;

c) to reduce to the minimum the time between the various steps in the review.

3. The times imposed by the Rules are tight and where prompt application is made for relief within the mandatory 14 days accompanied by a reasonable explanation, many circumstances will justify an extension of time under Rule 5/1/7 or after that time a dispensation from the requirements of the Rules under Rule 5/10/32;

4. An applicant under Rule 5/10/32 should explain (1) why a time limit was missed, a Rule not complied with or otherwise why dispensation is required, (2) any delay which has occurred in making the application, (3) that the relief sought by the applicant will not unduly prejudice the other party's case, (4) that the granted dispensation will enable all of the issues in contention to be promptly brought before the court without further delay.

PNG Cases Cited

Dick Mune v Paul Poto (No 2) [1997] PNGLR 356; Re Election of Governor–General (No 3) (2004) SC752; James Marabe v Tom Tomiape (No 2) (2007) SC856; Re Kunangel [1991] PNGLR 1; Ben Wafia v The State (2006) SC851; The State v Andrew Tovue [1981] PNGLR 8; SCR No.6 of 2008 Michael Laimo v Andrew Trawen, Electoral Commissioner of Papua New Guinea and John Ilam, Returning Officer for South Bougainville Open Electorate 22 August 2008, unpublished and unreported judgment of Kapi CJ; Avia Aihi v The State (No 1) [1981] PNGLR 81; Independent State of Papua New Guinea v Colbert [1988] PNGLR 138; Erie Ovako Jurvie v Bony Oveyara (2008) SC935

References

Constitution

Supreme Court Election Petition Review Rules

1. BY THE COURT: The National Court dismissed Mr Vele's petition against the election of Mr Parkop to the National Parliament in the 2007 National Elections. Mr Vele filed an application in the Supreme Court for leave to review the decision of the National Court, pursuant to the powers of review given to the Supreme Court by the Constitution, s155(2)(b).

2. Pursuant to the Constitution s184, the Supreme Court has made rules to govern reviews of election petition decisions. These are the Supreme Court Election...