Garamut Enterprises Ltd v Steamships Trading Company Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Citation: (1999) SC625
• Date: 26 November 1999
• Court: Supreme Court
• Year: 1999

Supreme Court: Hinchliffe J, Injia J, Kirriwom J

Judgment Delivered: 26 November 1999

1 Practice and Procedure—Application for leave to apply for judicial review—Leave granted—Appeal against grant of leave—O16 r3 and r11 National Court Rules

2 Leave to appeal against interlocutory order mandatory—Leave neither sought nor obtained—Appeal incompetent, objection upheld—O16 r11 National Court Rules, O10, Supreme Court Rules and s14 and s17, Supreme Court Act (Ch35)

3 Chan v Ombudsman (1998) SC557 distinguished; Henzy Yakham v Stuart Merriam [1998] PNGLR 555 applied

___________________________

By the Court: On an appeal from an order of the National Court of 8 October 1999 granting leave to the respondent named in this matter to apply for judicial review of various decisions made by the Minister for Lands and Physical Planning and the Land board over a piece of land in the city of Port Moresby and the subsequent issuing of title to land to the Appellant, the Respondent raised a preliminary point on the objection to the competency of the appeal. The ground of objections are:

That the appellant has failed to include the proper parties as respondents to this appeal.

That pursuant to s14 of the Supreme Court Act no appeal against the order of His Honour Judge Woods lies to the Supreme Court without leave of the Supreme Court as the Order appealed from is an interlocutory judgment and the appellant has failed to seek or obtain leave of the Supreme Court within the time allowed under s17 of the Supreme Court Act.

That the appellant has no locus standi to appeal against the decision of His Honour Woods J. The decision was made on an ex parte application a fortiori the appellant has no interest.

The appellant was named as a party in an application for leave for judicial review under O16 r3 of the National Court Rules. The review was sought in relation to a decision by the Minister for Lands and Physical Planning and the Land Board which considered, rezoned and issued a commercial lease to the appellant over a piece of land described Allotment 23, Section 71, Hohola, National Capital District. Both the Minister and the Members of the Land Board were named as Defendants in the proceedings besides the Appellant.

Ordinarily applications for leave for judicial review under O16 r3 are pursued ex parte provided however appropriate notice is given to the Secretary for Justice, in reality now the Attorney–General, as required under r3(3). He is the only person given notice at this stage until the question of leave has been...