Arona Valley Development Authority Inc v Taranupi [1999] PGNC 38; N1892 (21 May 1999)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1892

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

OS NO. 225 OF 1999
BETWEEN: ARONA VALLEY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY INC.
PLAINTIFF
AND: MUKI TARANUPI
FIRST DEFENDANT
AND: JACKSON TIPUWA
SECOND DEFENDANT
AND: BAWAMPU LTD
THIRD DEFENDANT

Goroka

Kirriwom J
7 May 1999
14 May 1999

Counsel

Mr Umba for the Plaintiff

Mr Steven for the Defendants

14 May 1999

RULING

KIRRIWOM J: This matter comes before the Court by way of an Originating Summons filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants seeking orders in the nature of inter alia, interim injunction and permanent injunction. A notice of motion seeking an interim injunction came before me on the 7th May 1999 and I granted interim injunction by consent but ordered the matter to be returned today 14th May 1999 for full hearing and argument.

At the hearing of this motion Mr Steven who appeared on behalf of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants objected to several paragraphs in the Affidavit of Robert Pamao, the General Manager of Plaintiff company sworn 29th April 1999 and filed in support of the Plaintiff’s application. My rulings in relation to those objections are as follows:

1. & I allow parag1aph 1 of thef the Affidavit to remain. I am not convinced by the evidence that the Deponent is not authorised to claim to be what he is and to represent the Plaintiff in that capacity. This is a matter for further pleadings and evidence if I understand the Defendant’s case correctly.

2. ; I strik outgraragraphs 4 hs 4 and 5 of the affidavit in that they are alleging fraud. Such allegation must be properly pleaded in a statement of claim able efendto fidefenp>

3. &#160   &< &160;&#160 I allow paragraphs and 10 d 10 to remain however subject to the orders I will hereinafter make.

4. &##160;; P60; Paragraragraphs 11 and 12 are struck out as expressing opinion and aso unand scandalous. Ius. If somf some of those factual matters are relevant for the plaintiff’s case they need to be properly pleaded in a Stnt of Claim.

In orde order to avoid confusing the issues, I will not make any ruling on the Motion filed by the Defendants for the reasons that the Plaintiff needs time to absolve all those matters raised in the Affidavit filed to properly respond to them so that issues can become clearer for the Court. I will therefore defer ruling on that motion for one week until I hear submissions from the Plaintiff. In other words that motion is returnable before me on the 21st of May 1999 unless parties want 14 days or longer time.

But on the Plaintiff’s motion alone I make the following orders:

1. ; The intirim ctjunction gran granted on 7/5/99 is hereby extended to 21/5/99.

2. &#116e Plaf is mediafile dele dertaking as to damages which bears the appropriateriate endo endorsemersement ofnt of the the Board of the Plaintiff Company and dualed e thern dap>

3. ;&160; #16e The Plaintiff is to i to immediately file a Statement of Claim and properly plead those matters raised in the affidavit of Robert Pamao so that the Defendant can reply and the normal procedure as if proceedings commenced by way of a Writ of Summons shall apply. There are matters of public interest at stake and I don’t think it would be necessary to dismiss the proceedings on foot in order to meet the changes required to validate the proceedings. The Rules do allow for this. Plaintiff has 14 days to file Statement of Claim and to serve on defendants.

4. & C60; Costs shall be in the cause.

Lawyer for the Plaintiff: Acanufa & Associates

Lawyer for the Defendants: Maladinas