Nick Kopia Kuman v Dawa Lucas Dekena and Others

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Court: Supreme Court
• Judge: Salika CJ,Auka J,Carey J
• Judgment Date: 27 July 2026
• Neutral Citation: SC2857
• Docket Number: SCAPP 79 OF 2025 (IECMS)
• Date: 27 July 2026
• Counsel: Mr. T. Sirae McGregor, for the applicant,Mr. N. Tame, for the first respondent,Ms. S. Kapi, for the second respondent,Counsel

SC2857

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE]

SCAPP 79 OF 2025 (IECMS)

Application Under Section 155(2)(b) of the Constitution

In the Matter of Part XVIII of the Organic Law on National and Local Level Government Elections

Between:

Nick Kopia Kuman

Applicant

v.

Dawa Lucas Dekena

First Respondent

and

The Electoral Commission of Papua New Guinea

Second Respondent

WAIGANI: Salika CJ, Auka J, Carey J

24, 27 July 2026

SUPREME COURT RULES — Order 11 Rules 25 and 26

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — application to dismiss appeal for want of prosecution — whether the First Respondent had a satisfactory explanation for any delay

The First Respondent sought a rehearing de novo of its Notice of Motion filed on 16^th October 2025. Using Order 11 Rules 25 and 26 of the Supreme Court Rules the First Respondent proceeded with this application. The Applicant suggests that the application by the First Respondent is defective and an abuse of process.

Held:

1. A lawyer's non-attendance and mere assertion of mistake does not constitute a satisfactory explanation for default.

2. The Order 11 application is competently invoked but fails on the merits as there is no satisfactory explanation for default, no lawyer's affidavit, and no arguable prejudice justifying reinstatement on a rehearing de novo.

3. The application by the First Respondent is dismissed in its entirety as it has no merit.

4. The costs of the Applicant and the Second Respondent of and incidental to the proceedings be paid by the First Respondent on a party-party basis, to be taxed if not otherwise agreed.

Cases cited

Leo Duque v Avia Andrew Paru [1997] PNGLR 378

NEC v Toropo [2022] SC 2193

Nema v Kaiwi [2025] SC2773

Tongamp v Kaiwi [2025] SC2774

Wakerkwa v Zongonau & Ors [2024] SC2649

Counsel

Mr. T. Sirae McGregor, for the applicant

Mr. N. Tame, for the first respondent

Ms. S. Kapi, for the second respondent

Lawyers for the applicant: McGregor & Associates Lawyers

Lawyers for the first respondent: Nicholas Tame Lawyers

Lawyers for the second respondent: Niugini Legal Practice

JUDGMENT

1. BY THE COURT: This is the decision on Dawa Lucas Dekena's (the First Respondent) application filed 16^th October 2025 seeking leave to have his application of 27^th August 2025 reheard by the Supreme Court.

BACKGROUND

2. Nick Kopia Kuman (the Applicant) and the First Respondent were candidates in the 2022 National General Elections who contested for the Gumine Open seat in Simbu Province.

3. The Electoral Commission (the Second Respondent) appeared as a neutral party.

4. On 7^th August 2022 the First Respondent was declared the winner with 19, 170 votes while the Applicant polled 15, 907 votes.

5. On 15^th September 2022 the Applicant filed a petition, proceeding styled EP 80 of 2022 Nick Kopia Kuman v Lucas Dawa Dekena and the Electoral Commission, in the National Court and trial was conducted between 4 November and 19 December 2024.

6. On 12^th August 2025 the Court handed down its ruling dismissing the petition with costs against the Applicant.

7. The Applicant, being aggrieved by the decision, filed this proceeding on 24^th August 2025.

8. By a motion filed 24^th August 2025 the Applicant sought leave to review the decision of 12^th August 2025.

9. The First Respondent filed a motion on 27^th August 2025 seeking dismissal of the Applicant's motion seeking leave to review.

10. On 15^th October 2025 the First Respondent's motion filed 27^th August 2025 was dismissed by the motions judge for want of prosecution after the Respondents' lawyers did not turn up in Court for hearing of the First Respondent's application filed 27^th August 2025.

11. The First Respondent filed this application on 16^th October 2025 seeking rehearing of his application filed 27^th August 2025.

ISSUE(S)

a) Whether the Notice of Motion filed by the First Respondent on 16^th October 2025 is defective?

b) Whether the interests of justice suggest that this application can proceed?

c) Whether, notwithstanding any defect, the interests of justice require that the application be heard;

d) Whether the application constitutes an abuse of process;

e) Whether the affidavit evidence is sufficient to support the application;

f) Whether any party would suffer prejudice if the application were granted or refused;

g) The appropriate order as to costs.

DETERMINATION

12. The First Respondent avers that Order 11 Rule 25 and 26 of the Supreme Court Rules 2012 consolidated to the Supreme Court (Miscellaneous Amendments) Rules 2022 provides that its application filed on 27^th August 2025 and dismissed for want of prosecution by a Single Judge Bench of the Supreme Court on 15^th October 2025 can be re-heard by this three-person Supreme Court Bench.

13. The single judge order was made on 15^th October 2025 and the present notice of motion was filed on 16^th October 2025 which is within 21 days.

14. The notice of motion on 16^th October 2025 also seeks the same orders as were sought before the single judge, satisfying Order 11 Rule 26.

15. The First Respondent admits that he has no reasonable explanation save a mistake by his lawyer to attend to court to advance his application.

16. The Applicant contends that this application before the Court is defective and an abuse of process.

17. Further, the Applicant indicates that this application lacks merit, is frivolous and is vexatious.

18. In Leo Duque v Avia Andrew Paru [1997] PNGLR 378, it states that a lawyer's negligent conduct in allowing his client to suffer default judgment is not a valid reason for setting aside default judgment.

19. The argument advanced by the First Respondent as to any reasonable explanation is lacking in substance and provides no support to sustain a position that should warrant this court making any consideration in its favour.

20. Wakerkwa v Zongonau & Ors [2024] SC2649 held that:

“There was a plain failure to continue to prosecute the matter and no reasonable explanation provided by the appellants.”

21. In this instance the First Respondent did not prosecute the matter.

22. The Affidavit in Support of the motion before this court was by the First Respondent and not the lawyer who would have been aware as to why he allowed the judgement to be entered against the First Respondent which dismissed his application for want of prosecution.

...