Louis Medaing on behalf of Himself and Members of the Tong and Ogeg Clan and Mebu Clan By Its Representative and Sibiag 2 Clan By Its Representative and Sibiag Gugu Clan By Its Representative and Baleng Clan By Its Representative v Minister for Lands & Physical Planning and Registrar of Titles and Ganglau Landowner Company Ltd and Patrick Nasa, Special Land Titles Commissioner (2010) N3917

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Court: National Court
• Date: 19 February 2010
• Citation: (2010) N3917
• Docket Number: OS NO 1038 OF 2005
• Year: 2010

Full Title: OS NO 1038 OF 2005; Louis Medaing on behalf of Himself and Members of the Tong and Ogeg Clan and Mebu Clan By Its Representative and Sibiag 2 Clan By Its Representative and Sibiag Gugu Clan By Its Representative and Baleng Clan By Its Representative v Minister for Lands & Physical Planning and Registrar of Titles and Ganglau Landowner Company Ltd and Patrick Nasa, Special Land Titles Commissioner (2010) N3917

National Court: Cannings J

Judgment Delivered: 19 February 2010

JUDICIAL REVIEW—review of decision of Minister to grant State Lease over land that was the subject of a dispute under the Land Dispute Settlements Act—Minister’s decision also subject to judicial review in separate proceedings that have been concluded—whether prior orders of National Court prevent the National Court from determining subsequent application for judicial review.

The first plaintiff applied for judicial review of the decision of the Minister for Lands and Physical Planning to grant a State Lease to the third defendant on the ground that the land covered by the State Lease was the subject of a dispute between different clans and groups as to customary ownership of the land, which was being determined by a Commissioner appointed under the Land Disputes Settlement Act and the Land Titles Commission Act. The defendants sought to have the application for judicial review dismissed on the ground that the issues raised and the relief sought by the first plaintiff had already been addressed by the National Court in separate judicial review proceedings.

Held:

(1) The previous National Court proceedings were commenced by a different party and did not address the ground of review relied on by the first plaintiff and did not result in the relief sought by the first plaintiff. The principles of issue estoppel and res judicata therefore did not prevent the Court in the present proceedings from determining the application for judicial review.

(2) The fact that the land was the subject of dispute and that a Special Land Titles Commissioner had been appointed was a relevant consideration that the Minister failed to take into account when deciding to grant the State Lease.

(3) The Minister’s decision was affected by...