Mark Ankama v Papua New Guinea Electricity Commission (2002) N2303
Jurisdiction | Papua New Guinea |
Judge | Kandakasi J |
Judgment Date | 23 October 2002 |
Court | National Court |
Citation | (2002) N2303 |
Year | 2002 |
Judgement Number | N2303 |
Full Title: Mark Ankama v Papua New Guinea Electricity Commission (2002) N2303
National Court: Kandakasi J
Judgment Delivered: 23 October 2002
1 PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE—Proper mode of commencement of proceedings—Writ of Summons mode used to seek reinstatement by dismissed employee—Reinstatement not an available remedy subject to specific legislation—Dismissal effected after all administrative procedures exhausted—Judicial review of decision to terminated could have been appropriate remedy subject to leave being granted—No application for review and leave for review sought—Only remedy sue for damages for unlawful or wrongful dismissal.
2 PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE—All issues in a case should be dealt with together to minimize cost, time and inconvenience of parties and witnesses—The practice of separate trials should not be encouraged except in very complex cases—Parties should settlement all matters out of court and go to trial only on a succinct issue—Counsel should assist the Court with a good opening to get the Court stay focused.
3 EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT—Termination of employment contract—Dishonesty ground for dismissal—Dishonestly claiming and receiving higher duty allowances without proper authorisation—Prior record of dishonestly applying employer's property to own use—Employment lawfully terminated—Action dismissed—s36 Employment Act 1978—s12 Electricity Commission Act 1961.
4 Robinson v National Airlines Commission [1983] PNGLR 476, Gideon Barereba v Margaret Elias (2002) N2197, Public Officers Superannuation Fund Board v Sailas Imanakuan (2001) SC677, Ome Ome Forests Ltd v Ray Cheong (2002) N2289, National Airline Commission, trading as Air Niugini v Lysenko [1986] PNGLR 323, Yooken Pakilin and Alvis Kandai v The Independent State of Papua New Guinea (2001) N2212 and Bank of Hawaii (PNG) Ltd v PNGBC (2001) N2095 referred to
___________________________
N2303
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]
WS. NO. 955 OF 1999
BETWEEN:
MARK ANKAMA
Plaintiff
AND:
PAPUA NEW GUINEA ELECTRICITY COMMISSION
Defendant
KANDAKASI, J.
2002: 23rd August
23rd October
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Proper mode of commencement of proceedings – Writ of Summons mode used to seek reinstatement by dismissed employee – Reinstatement not an available remedy subject to specific legislation – Dismissal effected after all administrative procedures exhausted – Judicial review of decision to terminated could have been appropriate remedy subject to leave being granted – No application for review and leave for review sought – Only remedy sue for damages for unlawful or wrongful dismissal.
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – All issues in a case should be dealt with together to minimize cost, time and inconvenience of parties and witnesses – The practice of separate trials should not be encouraged except in very complex cases – Parties should settlement all matters out of court and go to trial only on a succinct issue – Counsel should assist the Court with a good opening to get the Court stay focused.
EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT – Termination of employment contract – Dishonesty ground for dismissal – Dishonestly claiming and receiving higher duty allowances without proper authorisation – Prior record of dishonestly applying employer’s property to own use – Employment lawfully terminated – Action dismissed – s.36 Employment Act 1978 – s.12 Electricity Commission Act 1961.
Cases Cited:
Robinson v. National Airline Commission [1993] PNGLR 476.
Gideon Barereba v. Margaret Elias (Unreported judgement delivered on 15/02/02) N2197.
Public Officers Superannuation Fund Board v. Sailas Imanakuan (Unreported judgement) SC 677.
Ome Ome Forest Ltd v. Bill Garey & Ors (2002) N2289.
National Airline Commission trading as Air Niugini v. Valerian Lysenko [1986] PNGLR 323.
Yooken Pakilin and Alvis Kandai v. The Independent State of Papua New Guinea (2001) N2212.
Bank of Hawaii (PNG) Ltd v PNGBC (2001) N2095.
Counsel:
Mr. D. Uyassi for the Plaintiff.
Ms. L. Maru for the Defendant.
23rd October 2002
KANDAKASI, J: This is a claim in damages for an alleged unlawful dismissal of the plaintiff (Mr. Ankama) by the defendant (ELCOM) following disciplinary actions allegedly for receiving higher duty allowances unlawfully.
Preliminary
Initially, Mr. Ankama was seeking reinstatement of his employment with ELCOM on the basis that his employment with ELCOM was unlawfully terminated. At the outset of the trial, I inquired with Mr. Ankama’s counsel as to whether, his client was entitled to such a relief. I proceeded on the well-established legal principle that subject only to specific legislation, reinstatement is not an available remedy once an employment relationship has ended. Andrew J in Robinson v. National Airline Commission [1993] PNGLR 476 succinctly stated the relevant principles at 478:
“It is true that the rights of the plaintiff lie at law by way of an action for wrongful dismissal, assuming the dismissal to be unlawful. In a suit between master and servant in which the servant seeks to prevent the master suspending or dismissing him, the court will not interfere. If it is a suit for a declaration that the service continues, again in the case of an ordinary relationship of master and servant, the court will not interfere. Equity will not compel either master or servant to continue a personal relationship which has become noxious to either one of them: See Howes v. Gosford Shire Council [1962] NSWR 58.”
These principles have been adopted and applied in many judgements with the latest by my brother Justice Sevua in Gideon Barereba v. Margaret Elias (Unreported judgement delivered on 15/02/02) N2197.
Counsel for Mr. Ankama decided to abandoned the claim for reinstatement and instead proceed with the trial for a claim in damages instead. In view of the law on point, the plaintiff’s lawyer was correct in abandoning his client’s claim for reinstatement.
The trial therefore, proceeded only on the issue of liability. Prior to that happening, neither of the counsels informed me that, that was the case. I proceeded under the impression that both the issue of liability and damages were being tried. These highlights the practice by some lawyers these days of not presenting the Court with an opening address and separating trials on liability and damages when there is no real need for it.
As the Supreme Court said in Public Officers Superannuation Fund Board v. Sailas Imanakuan (Unreported judgement) SC 677 at p. 24, all disputes and or conflicts between people are capable of settlement out of Court. Thus, only matters that can not settle after all serious efforts toward that should go to the Courts with agreement on almost everything except of the points in real contest. This should produce succinct issues for trial in the Courts. A good opening would then be able to assist the Court to focus its mind on the real issues for trial and come up with a judgement on it. No doubt, this would save a lot of time, money and inconvenience for all of the parties involved, including the Courts.
It should necessarily follow from this that, unless a matter is so complex and complicated which requires much more time, energy and effort to resolve, both the issues of liability and damages should be dealt with together. This would help eliminate duplication of costs for the parties, recalling of all or some of the witnesses and the taking up of more judicial time and eliminate the need for two judgements on the one matter.
Issue
The only issue for me to determine in this case is whether Mr. Ankama was lawfully disciplined and eventually terminated? If I find that he was lawfully disciplined and terminated, that will be the end of the matter. If I find to the contrary, then the parties will take up the issue of damages themselves with a view to settling out of Court.
Evidence
The parties agreed to a trial by affidavit mainly with only one cross-examination. The cross-examination was that of Mr. Ankama by ELCOM. The affidavits before me by consent of the parties are the affidavits by:
1. Mr. Ankama sworn on 3rd July 2001;
2. Mr. Ankama sworn on 12th November 2001;
3. Mr. Ankama sworn on 12th November 2001;
4. Mr. Ankama sworn on 12th November 2001;
5. Maera Raepa sworn 27th June 2000;
6. Rex Ila sworn 11th October 2001;
7. Gime Saga sworn 24th October 2001;
8. Numana Kila sworn 15th October 2001;
9. Gabriel Waiut sworn 16th October 2001; and
10. Gabriel Waiut sworn 8th November 2001.
Facts
From these evidence the facts are these. Until his termination on 13th November 1998, Mr. Ankama was an...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In The Matter of an Application for Judicial Review under Order 16 of The National Court Rules; Isaac Lupari v Sir Michael Somare, MP - Prime Minister & Chairman of the National Executive Council and The Independent State of Papua New Guinea (2008) N3476
...(1995) N1333; Lawrence Sausau v Joseph Kumgal (2006) N3253; Luke Benjamin Supro v Gerea Aopi [1997] PNGLR 353; Mark Ankama v ELCOM (2002) N2303; Mark Ankama v ELCOM (2002) N2362; Mathew Petrus Himsa v Richard Sikani (2002) N2307; Mision Asiki v Manasupe Zurenuoc (2005) SC797; National Airli......
-
Mathew Petrus Himsa and Napao Namane v Richard Sikani, Commissioner of Correctional Services and The Independent State of Papua New Guinea (2002) N2307
...Mill Ltd (2001) N2106, Curtain Brothers (Queensland) Pty Ltd and Kinhill Kramer Pty Ltd v The State [1993] PNGLR 285, Mark Ankama v ELCOM (2002) N2303, Patterson v NCDC (2001) N2145, Teio Raka Ila v Wilson Kamit (2002) N2291, Lima Dataona v Moses Makis [1998] PNGLR 123, Leo Nuia v The Indep......
-
Igiseng Investments Limited v Starwest Constructions Limited and Igiseng–Okmanip Business Group Inc (2003) N2498
...Groups Incorporations Act (Ch144)—s365 to s381 Companies Act 1997. 5 Rimbink Pato v Reuben Kaiulo (2003) N2455, Mark Ankama v ELCOM (2002) N2303, Applications by Hugo Berghuser and Lawrence Titimur [1995] PNGLR 259, Curtain Brothers (Queensland) Pty Ltd and Kinhill Kramer Pty Ltd v The Stat......
-
In The Matter of The Organic Law on National and Local–level Government Elections and In The Matter of a Disputed Return for The Wapenamanda Open Electorate; Rimbink Pato v Reuben Kaiulo, Electoral Commissioner of Papua New Guinea and Miki Kaeko; EP No 68 of 2002; In The Matter of The Organic Law on National and Local–level Government Elections and In The Matter of A Disputed Return for The Wapenamanda Open Electorate; Masket Iangalio v Yangakun Miki Kaeok and The Electoral Commission of Papua New Guinea (2003) N2455
...1989. 6 Edward Ramu Diro v The Honourable Mr Justice Arnold Amet; Robert Mellor; and Silas Samuel [1995] PNGLR 411, Mark Ankama v ELCOM (2002) N2303, The State v Edward Toude (No 1) (2001) N2298, James Togel v Michael Ogio [1994] PNGLR 396, The State v Peter Malihombu (2003) N2365, The Stat......
-
In The Matter of an Application for Judicial Review under Order 16 of The National Court Rules; Isaac Lupari v Sir Michael Somare, MP - Prime Minister & Chairman of the National Executive Council and The Independent State of Papua New Guinea (2008) N3476
...(1995) N1333; Lawrence Sausau v Joseph Kumgal (2006) N3253; Luke Benjamin Supro v Gerea Aopi [1997] PNGLR 353; Mark Ankama v ELCOM (2002) N2303; Mark Ankama v ELCOM (2002) N2362; Mathew Petrus Himsa v Richard Sikani (2002) N2307; Mision Asiki v Manasupe Zurenuoc (2005) SC797; National Airli......
-
Mathew Petrus Himsa and Napao Namane v Richard Sikani, Commissioner of Correctional Services and The Independent State of Papua New Guinea (2002) N2307
...Mill Ltd (2001) N2106, Curtain Brothers (Queensland) Pty Ltd and Kinhill Kramer Pty Ltd v The State [1993] PNGLR 285, Mark Ankama v ELCOM (2002) N2303, Patterson v NCDC (2001) N2145, Teio Raka Ila v Wilson Kamit (2002) N2291, Lima Dataona v Moses Makis [1998] PNGLR 123, Leo Nuia v The Indep......
-
Igiseng Investments Limited v Starwest Constructions Limited and Igiseng–Okmanip Business Group Inc (2003) N2498
...Groups Incorporations Act (Ch144)—s365 to s381 Companies Act 1997. 5 Rimbink Pato v Reuben Kaiulo (2003) N2455, Mark Ankama v ELCOM (2002) N2303, Applications by Hugo Berghuser and Lawrence Titimur [1995] PNGLR 259, Curtain Brothers (Queensland) Pty Ltd and Kinhill Kramer Pty Ltd v The Stat......
-
In The Matter of The Organic Law on National and Local–level Government Elections and In The Matter of a Disputed Return for The Wapenamanda Open Electorate; Rimbink Pato v Reuben Kaiulo, Electoral Commissioner of Papua New Guinea and Miki Kaeko; EP No 68 of 2002; In The Matter of The Organic Law on National and Local–level Government Elections and In The Matter of A Disputed Return for The Wapenamanda Open Electorate; Masket Iangalio v Yangakun Miki Kaeok and The Electoral Commission of Papua New Guinea (2003) N2455
...1989. 6 Edward Ramu Diro v The Honourable Mr Justice Arnold Amet; Robert Mellor; and Silas Samuel [1995] PNGLR 411, Mark Ankama v ELCOM (2002) N2303, The State v Edward Toude (No 1) (2001) N2298, James Togel v Michael Ogio [1994] PNGLR 396, The State v Peter Malihombu (2003) N2365, The Stat......