The Independent State of Papua New Guinea v Raymond Turu and John Maku, Representatives of Clan Leaders, Forestry Agents and Landowners of Vanimo Block 6 Timber Rights Purchase Area (2008) SC904

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 29 February 2008
• Citation: (2008) SC904
• Docket Number: SCA NO 24 0F 2006
• Year: 2008

Full Title: SCA NO 24 0F 2006; The Independent State of Papua New Guinea v Raymond Turu and John Maku, Representatives of Clan Leaders, Forestry Agents and Landowners of Vanimo Block 6 Timber Rights Purchase Area (2008) SC904

Supreme Court: Kapi CJ, Gavara–Nanu & Cannings JJ

Judgment Delivered: 29 February 2008

APPEALS - motion to dismiss appeal for want of prosecution—Supreme Court Rules, O7, r53 - relevant considerations to exercise of discretion—whether there has been apparent delay in prosecuting application—whether application has been prosecuted with due diligence—whether applicant has provided adequate explanation.

The State appealed against an interlocutory decision of the National Court. More than 12 months passed and the appeal had not been listed. Preliminary steps to get the matter ready for hearing were not completed. The respondents to the appeal then moved the court to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.

Held:

(1) There has been a substantial delay in prosecuting the appeal. After more than 20 months the index of the review book has not been settled.

(2) The onus therefore was on the appellant to give a satisfactory explanation for the delay.

(3) It is no excuse for the State’s lawyer, the Solicitor-General, to say that another lawyer had possession of the file.

(4) The Court must look at all the events that have happened up to the day on which the motion is argued, in particular events that have taken place since the motion was filed.

(5) The appellant allowed four months to pass since the respondent moved the court to dismiss the appeal and did not do anything to progress the appeal.

(6) In deciding whether to exercise its discretion to dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution the court may also consider the consequences of dismissal of the appeal.

(7) Here, dismissal of the appeal will not finally determine the interests of the parties, so this makes the case unexceptional and favours dismissal.

(8) The motion to dismiss the appeal was accordingly granted.

Cases cited:

Dan Kakaraya v Sir...