Rimbink Pato v Anthony Manjin, Abraham Hulapmoni also known as Abraham Moni, Bruno (a Male), Masket Iangalio, MP And Peter Ipatas, MP

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Court: Supreme Court
• Judge: Sheehan J, Sevua J, Akuram J
• Judgment Date: 30 April 1999
• Citation: [1999] PNGLR 6
• Judgment Number: SC622
• Year: 1999

Supreme Court: Sheehan J, Sevua J, Akuram J

Judgment Delivered: 30 April 1999

SC622

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[In the Supreme Court of Justice]

SCA 07 of 1999

SCA 109 of 1998

BETWEEN: RIMBINK PATO

Applicant

AND: ANTHONY MANJIN

First Respondent

AND: ABRAHAM HULAPMONI

also known as ABRAHAM

MONI

Second Respondent

AND: BRUNO (a male)

Third Respondent

AND: MASKET IANGALIO, MP

Fourth Respondent

AND: PETER IPATAS, MP

Fifth Respondent

Waigani: Sheehan, Sevua & Akuram JJ

1999: 27th & 30th April

Practice and Procedure — Application for leave to appeal — Interlocutory injunction by National Court restraining police officers from investigating and arresting applicant — Discharge of interlocutory injunction by National Court — Whether leave required to appeal — Whether leave should be granted to appeal against discharge of interlocutory injunction — Section 14(3)(b) Supreme Court Act.

Where applicant sought, and was granted an interlocutory injunction restraining the first, second and third respondents from investigating and arresting him, and the interlocutory injunction was subsequently discharged on application by the respondents.

HELD: 1. The grant of leave pursuant to s.14(3)(b) of the Supreme Court Act is in the discretion of the Court and is neither automatic nor granted as a matter of course.

2. For leave to be granted, an applicant must advance consent and convincing reasons or exceptional circumstances; there must be clear legal grounds meriting an appeal, and he must have an arguable case.

3. The balance of convenience did not favour the applicant thereby warranting the sustenance and extension of the interlocutory injunction.

4. The applicant has the right under s.57 Constitution to enforce his constitutional rights in respect of a criminal prosecution if he alleges that his rights have been violated. Similarly, he has the right to sue for defamation under the Defamation Act if he claims his reputation has been injured and his character defamed.

5. Leave is refused in both applications.

CASE CITED:

Henzy Yakham & Anor -v- Meriam & Meriam, SC 533, 27th November, 1997.

I. Molloy for Applicant

C. Coady for 1st, 2nd & 3rd Respondents

B. Andrew for 4th Respondent

L. Henao for 5th Respondent

30th April, 1999

BY THE COURT: The applicant has filed two applications for leave for this Court's determination. The first application is in respect of orders made by Woods, J on 4th and 11th December, 1998. The second application relates to the orders of Woods, J made on 17th December, 1998.

The applicant commenced proceedings by originating summons (OS 565 of 1998) against the first three respondents initially. The proceedings were in respect of claims by the applicant that the respondents had conspired with the fourth and fifth respondents to injure his reputation as a prominent lawyer and a politician and also to breach his constitutional rights by arresting him and charging him with criminal offences relating to the 1997 National Elections in Enga.

On 23rd October, 1998, Sheehan, J granted an interim injunction order. Order No. 3 states:

"Pending further order, the defendants and each of them by themselves, and by their respective fellow police officer (sic), servants and agents restrained (sic) from attempting or purporting to arrest the plaintiff or to otherwise interfere with his liberty on the basis of any matter...