Sobegate v Lelehaza [2002] PGDC 31; DC430 (19 August 2002)

DC430

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF JUSTICE]

LLG PEP NO 1 OF 2002

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

AND:

In the Matter of a Dispute of Returns for the UNGGAI BENA LOCAL LEVEL GOVERNMENT Elections for the WARD NINE (9)

BETWEEN

Saufina Sobegate
Petitioner

V

Kay Lelehaza
First Respondent

Electoral Commission
Second Respondent

Goroka: Manue F. Magistrate
2002: 19th August

REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT

MANUE F: This is a Local Level Government Council Election Petition filed by the Petitioner against the Return of the first Respondent. The Second Respondent is joined in as a party, as it is responsible in the conduct of the whole elections.

FACTS:

The Petition was filed or registered on the 15th July 2002, and not on the 18th August 2002. The second date is the date of the Return of the Petition or Proof of Service.

When the matter came for listing on the 18th August 2002, Service of the Petition have been rendered as Proof of Services were filed against all the respondents.

The Court however, noted that the Proof of Service against the first Respondent as filed, shows that the Petitioner was served on the 14th August 2000, which is more than 14 days from the date of filing of the Petition.

THE LAW:

The Organic Law on National and Local Level Government Elections governs the conduct and setting of Disputes of all Elections Subsections (2) of Section 208 allows judges to make rules relating to procedures, but does not apply to Magistrates so as to enable Magistrates to make the appropriate rules. However, we can still adopt the practice rules of the National Court with appropriate modification as provided in the Practice Direction, which was issued by the Chief Magistrate on the 21st June 2002.

Practice Direction Clause 7 states:

"A petitioner shall, within 14 days of Service of the Petition, file an affidavit of Service at the District Court Registry indicating how the respondent was identified and serviced, and the date of Service of the petition and other associated documents."

Although, the Petitioner had served the Petition, he had not had it filed within 14 days from the date the Petition was registered. In my view, the Petitioner had not complied with the Practice Direction requirement and so it was Struck out. Further to that, even if the Petition went through having studied the Petition, it had not complied with requirements of Section 208 (9) of the Organic Law.

The matter was therefore Struck out.