(1) SC Rev 55 of 2008; In the matter of an Application under s155(2) (b) Constitution and In re Part XVIII Organic Law on National and Local Level Government Elections; Andrew Trawen, Electoral Commission of Papua New Guinea and John Itanu, Returning Officer for South Bougainville Open Electorate v Steven Pirika Kama and Michael Laimo; (2) SC Rev 56 of 2008; Michael Laimo and Andrew Trawen, Electoral Commission of Papua New Guinea and John Itanu, Returning Officer for South Bougainville Open Electorate v Steven Pirika Kama.

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Court: Supreme Court
• Citation: (2010) SC1063
• Date: 16 July 2010
• Year: 2010

Full Title: (1) SC Rev 55 of 2008; In the matter of an Application under s155(2) (b) Constitution and In re Part XVIII Organic Law on National and Local Level Government Elections; Andrew Trawen, Electoral Commission of Papua New Guinea and John Itanu, Returning Officer for South Bougainville Open Electorate v Steven Pirika Kama and Michael Laimo; (2) SC Rev 56 of 2008; Michael Laimo and Andrew Trawen, Electoral Commission of Papua New Guinea and John Itanu, Returning Officer for South Bougainville Open Electorate v Steven Pirika Kama.

Supreme Court: Sakora, Batari, Lenalia, Davani, Hartshorn JJ

Judgment Delivered: 16 July 2010

SUPREME COURT—Slip Rule - nature of application - whether application made pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the Court or under s155(2) (b) or s155(4) Constitution - whether application made before the same Judges - whether leave to apply is required

Facts:

This is a slip rule application to reopen a decision of the Chief Justice sitting as a single Supreme Court Judge. That decision was to dismiss two (2) applications for leave to review decisions of the National Court concerning an Election Petition. In the course of hearing the applications to reopen, the Chief Justice decided that the determination of certain issues would assist in the resolution of these applications. The applications were adjourned for the parties to prepare. This Court was constituted to continue to hear the applications. In determining four issues referred;

Held:

1. A slip rule application is to correct a glaring error or mistake in a judgment or order of the Court. Such a mistake would be either clerical, an accidental omission in a judgment or order or would be a misapprehension of fact or law (Re Nomination of Governor-General; Application by Sir Pato Kakaraya (No. 2) (2004) SC752)

2. A slip rule application to this Court cannot be made under s. 155 (2) (b) Constitution as that subsection concerns this Court’s inherent power to review judicial acts of the National Court. Section 155(4) Constitution also does not provide the opportunity for a slip rule application to be made to the Supreme Court to reopen one of its decisions.

3. A slip rule application must be made before the same Supreme Court constituted by the same judge or judges who heard and determined the appeal or review.

4. The very nature of a slip rule application precludes the necessity for leave.

5. These applications are referred back to the Chief Justice for him to determine including the question of costs.

Cases cited:

Autodesk Inc v Dyason [No 2] (1993) 176 CLR 30; Richard Dennis Wallbank v The State [1994] PNGLR 78; R v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate & Ors, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 2) [1999] 1 All ER 577 at 585, [1999] UKHL 52; Re Election of Governor–General (No 3) (2004) SC752; Slip Rule Application; James Marabe v Tom Tomiape (No 2)...