Bari v Governing Council, St Paul's Teachers College, Vunakanau [1994] PGNC 9; N1253 (6 April 1994)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1253

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

OS NO 19 OF 1994
PAUL BARI - Plaintiff
v
CHAIRMAN, GOVERNING COUNCIL, ST. PAUL'S TEACHERS COLLEGE, VUNAKANAU - 1st Defendant
CHAIRMAN OF NATIONAL EDUCATION BOARD OF APPEAL COMMITTEE - 2nd Defendant
MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION - 3rd Defendant
THE STATE - 4th Defendant

Waigani

Brown J
12 January 1994
6 April 1994

JUDICIAL REVIEW - Principles - Application for leave - Question whether private or public law matter - Private Law - Leave refused.

Facts:

The plaintiff was a student at the St Paul’s Teachers College, Vunakanau and was expelled for misconduct. He appealed to the Cha of n of the National Education Board Appeal Committee and when his expulsion was confirmed, to the Minister for Education who also upheld the Chairman of the Ging Councils original decision. The appeal avenues wees were provided for by the Charter of Incorporation under which the Teachers College operated. The plainmade application tion for leave of the Court to judicially review the various decisions ord his expulsion.

H>Held:

(1) ـ The Chagter governiverning the St Paul’s Teachers College, Vunakanau may be categorised as “private law” and consequently the plaintiff must show that he has “locus i&#82/p> <&160; #160; 
he; Tct th ishe is a stua student does not, of itself, give him standing where the Charter has an exhaustive appeal procedure.

(3) The actions of the Governing Council in expelling the plaintiff are within its province and because of the “private law” nature of the acts, are not amenable to judicial review.

Abraham Sulaiman v PNG University of Technology (unreported National Court decision N610)

Albert Kuluah v University of PNG Anors (unreported National Court decision N889)

Edwards v Onehunga High School Board (1972) 2 NZLR 238

Counsel:

Mr L Tito for the Plaintiff

Mr A Haboic (Policy & Legal Secretary) on behalf of the Defendant

Application for leave for judicial review.

REASONS FOR DECISION

6 April 1994

BROWN J: Th a claim by the plai plaintiff who is aggrieved by the decision of the first defendant which expelled him for misconduct from the St Paul’s Teachers Colleunakanau. Following an appeal taintiaintiff seeks juds judicial review of the first defendant’s decision to expel him from the College and further review of the second and third defendants decision refusing to reinstate the plaintiff. He also seeksral damages, ges, special damages and the costs of these proceedings.

The proceedings are brought by way of notice of motursuant to O.16 of the National Court Rules. On the hearing of applicatlication whichwhich came before me on the 12 January, I refuse leave for judicial review and advised that my written reasons would follow. I now set oureasons.

Beforeaintiff may be heard it is t is necessary for him to show that he has “standing” or locus standi. Different considens apherewhere a party seeks to enforce a private law claimclaim or public law claim. I would consid the cases dses dealt with e Courts in Papua New Guinea that there is third category which may be described as public blic interest applications. [See SCR of 1 Re Petition tion of Michael Somare (1991) PNGLR 265].265]. In case however it is clea clear that this is essentially a pr law claim. The St Paul’s TeacCors College, Vunakanau is not an inferior court ourt tribunal or other body or person charith a performance of publicublic acts and duties. In my view the Tea Collegellege is a private institution governed by the Council pursuant to the charter which is in evidence. It cannot be regars an eman emanation of the State so as to attache as it wer it, a status which justifistifies interference by the Court. There ell be an avenue fore for review from the Governing Councilhe Chairman of the Nationalional Education Board Appeal Committee and hence to the Minister for Education but that does not imbue thehers College with the characharacter of a “public body” sufficient to attract judicial review on the subject of the boys expulsion. An aspect may bre there isre is a legitimate expectation that the National Government will fund the Teachers College. If facts gave rise to su e an expectation then this Court may consider an application for judicial review on the application of the Governing Council, in those circumstances for such facts would bring the cause within the public law domain.

The plaintiff in this case however is a student. Any private lahts that he t he may have as such arising under contract or tort, (and I do not seek to suggest the existence of any such rights by my comment) are not a concern of this Court in judicial revioceedings. (See AbrahAbraham Sun v PN v PNG University of Technology N610).

It is necessary to show that the plaintiff has a public law right which he says has been infringed. He is n employee of a publ public body control, led by statute for instance where employers might have both public and private law rights. (See Albert Kuluah v University of PNG & ORS [19909).

Certainly he hase has been afforded natural justice having regard to the terms of the appeal procedure.

There is notitutional right in a citizen to be trained as a teacher.&#er. trained as a teacher, in , in my view cannot be equated with some basic right to an education, a basic right which is not enunciated in the Constitution. A baight to an education mion mcompass literacy and numeraumeracy but to extend any such basic learning beyond that scope and describe it as the plaintiff attempts here, as a breach of constitutional right is in my view wrew wrong.

The Governing Council cannot be equated with the Public Service. The public may havinteresterest in seeing that the curriculum provided for by the Governing Council of the Teachers College corresponds with guidelines facilitating financial assistance from the Government. Thncil however is the gove governing body of the Teachers College. The maxim omnia praesenmuntur rite esse acta applies for the avenues of appeal have been sted. The New Zealand Court of Appeal applied this mais maxim in Edwards v Onehunga High School Board (1972) 2 NZLR 238 where tpellant challenged the vire vires of a school rule. The Board uthority to make make rules as were necessary or desirable for exercising management and control of the school. In the absence of art that that the rules railed those purposes, the boardpresuo have acted with within itin its powers. The Council have responsibility and power to govern the college and this Court cannotrfere. It is the priv private concern of the Governing Council.

There is then no public interest in such a case sufficie afford this plaintiff a ri a right of judicial review of the actions of that Governing Council. It quently follows a the athe actions of the Chairman of the Appeal Committee and the Minister flowing as they do from the private law provisions of the Teachers Ce charter are also not amenable to judicial review.

>

For these reasons leave is refused.

Lawyer for the Plaintiff:

Lawyer for the Defendant: