SCR 22 of 1999; Jimson Sauk Papaki v Don Pomb Pullie Polye and Electoral Commission of Papua New Guinea

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Court: Supreme Court
• Judge: Sheehan J, Jalina J, Sawong J
• Judgment Date: 29 October 1999
• Citation: (1999) SC644
• Judgment Number: SC644
• Year: 1999
• Docket Number: SCR 22 of 1999

Supreme Court: Sheehan J, Jalina J, Sawong J

Judgment Delivered: 29 October 1999

SC644

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[In the Supreme Court of Justice]

SCR 22 of 1999

BETWEEN:

JIMSON SAUK PAPAKI

Applicant

AND:

DON POMB PULLIE POLYE

First Respondent

AND:

ELECTORAL COMMISSION OF

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

Second Respondent

Waigani: SHEEHAN, JALINA,

SAWONG, JJ.

1999: 25th, 29th October

Election Petition — application for judicial review of National Court determination.

Mr G. Sheppard for the Applicant

Mr P. Dowa for the 1st Respondent

Mr K. Kongri for the 2nd Respondent

D E C I S I O N

BY THE COURT: In this application for judicial review the Applicant Jimson Sauk Papaki challengers the decision of the National Court which upheld the petition of Don Pomb Pullie Polye and declared that the election of the Applicant as Member of Parliament for the Kandep Open Electorate was invalid.

Such review is not a matter of course and before relief may be obtained the Court must be shown cogent and convincing reasons.

Of all the grounds pleaded in support of this review the Applicant pursued only three. The substance of these was:

(1) the first Respondent lacked standing as an elector and candidate and therefore lacked the standing to bring a petition under the Organic Law. The petition should therefore have been dismissed without hearing.

(2) the National Court determination that the Electoral Commission had through carelessness failed to secure the integrity of the poll at some polling places and in particular by the lack of security whereby boxes and ballot were stolen could not be sustained on the evidence.

(3) The National Court failed to observe the requirement of the onus of proof in civil matters by not giving due weight to rebuttal evidence of...