Haiama Maia Nairu Incorporated Land Group (Reg. Ilg No. 1566) v The Minister for Petroleum and Energy [2026] PGNC 13; N11692 (3 February 2026)

N11692
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

OS NO 59 OF 2025 (CCI)

BETWEEN
HAIAMA MAIA NAIRU INCORPORATED LAND GROUP (REG. ILG NO. 1566)
Plaintiff

AND
THE MINISTER FOR PETROLUEM AND ENERGY at the material time in the exercise of the powers under Section 169 of the Oil and Gas Act, 1998
First Defendant

AND
THE INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA
Second Defendant

WAIGANI: MAKAIL J
19 NOVEMBER 2025; 3 FEBRUARY 2026

JUDICIAL REVIEW – Application for judicial review – Review of Ministerial Determination – Omission or exclusion of clan in benefit sharing derived from petroleum development project – Grounds of review – Ultra vires – Abuse of process and breach of process – Unreasonableness – Oil and Gas Act, 1998 – Sections 47, 167, 168, 169(4)

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Objection to competency of proceedings – Grounds of – Lack of locus standi – Failure to plead leave as sole relief in originating summons – Failure to plead with concise description of decisions sought to be reviewed – Failure to file affidavit verifying facts – Proceedings are time-barred – Whether proceedings are incompetent – Oil and Gas Act, 1998 – Section 169(10) – National Court Rules – Order 16, rule 3(2)(a)&(b)

Facts

This is an application to review two decisions of the Minister for Petroleum and Energy published in the National Gazette Nos. G967 and G968 where the Minister omitted to recognise and include the plaintiff and its members as beneficiaries for the purpose of distribution of benefits to be derived from a petroleum development project in the Baimuru District of the Gulf Province described as Application of Petroleum Development Licence No. 15 (APDL No. 15), Application of Petroleum Pipeline Licence No. 18 (APL No. 18), Application of Petroleum Processing Facility Licence No. 4 (APPFL No. 4), Application of Pipeline Licence No. 19 (APL No. 19) and Application of Pipileline Licence No. 20 (APL No. 20) pursuant to Sections 167 and 168 of the Oil and Gas Act, 1998.

Held:

1. According to Section 1 of the Oil and Gas Act, 1998 a Land Group Incorporation “has the meaning given in the Land Groups Incorporation Act (Chapter 147)”. Accordingly, the plaintiff had locus standi because Section 169(2)(b) of the Oil and Gas Act, 1998 recognised a Land Group Incorporation to represent and receive benefits on behalf of the grantees of the benefit.

2. The two decisions of the Minister for Petroleum and Energy published in the National Gazette Nos. G967 and G968 where the Minister omitted to recognise and include the plaintiff and its members as beneficiaries for the purpose of distribution of benefits to be derived from a petroleum development project were ultra vires the Minister’s powers under Section 167 and Section 168 of the Oil and Gas Act, 1998.

3. Under Section 169(4) of the Oil and Gas Act, 1998 the social mapping study and landowner identification study formed part of the information upon which the Minister may base his decisions. The other information may be “any agreements by persons who are or claim to be project area landowners, the decisions of the courts of Papua New Guinea as to ownership of land or rights in relation to land in the vicinity of the petroleum project in question.......submissions from affected Local-level Governments or affected Provincial Governments........”. In the absence of these studies, agreements between persons, decisions of the Courts and submissions from affected Local-level Governments or affected Provincial Governments all of which may operate against the plaintiff’s claim, it leaves open the strong inference that the decisions of the Minister were made without them or unilaterally and in breach of Section 47 and Section 169 (4) of the Oil and Gas Act, 1998: Luke Pelego & Ors v Dr Fabian Pok & Ors (2021) N8745 referred to.

4. An order in the nature of certiorari quashing the two decisions of the Minister for Petroleum and Energy published in the National Gazette Nos. G967 and G968 where the Minister omitted to recognise and include the plaintiff and its members as beneficiaries for the purpose of distribution of benefits to be derived from a petroleum development project were ultra vires the Minister’s powers under Section 167 and Section 168 of the Oil and Gas Act, 1998.

5. An order in the nature of mandamus directing the Minister for Petroleum and Energy to amend the two decisions published in the National Gazette Nos. G967 and G968 to include the plaintiff in the amended decisions (Determinations) within fourteen days of the order and to be notified in the corrigendum to the National Gazette Nos. G967 and G968.

Cases cited

Amadio Pty Ltd v The State and Ors: Mt Kare Holdings Pty Ltd [1992] PNGLR 218
Associated Provincial Picture House Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1947] EWCA Civ 1; [1948] 1 KB 223
Haiama Maia Nairu v Minister for Petroleum & Energy & The State (2025) N11385
Luke Pelego & Ors v Dr Fabian Pok & Ors (2021) N8745
Puara v Oil Search Limited & Ors (2022) N9476
The State & David Manau v Eric Havai Ako & Ors (2022) SC2323

Counsel

Mr A Jerewai, for plaintiff
Ms G Dusava, for defendants

JUDGMENT

1. MAKAIL J: On 22^nd July 2025, the plaintiff was granted leave by this Court to apply for judicial review of two decisions of the Minister for Petroleum and Energy where the Minister omitted to recognise and include the plaintiff and its members as beneficiaries for the purpose of distribution of benefits to be derived from a petroleum development project in the Baimuru District of the Gulf Province described as Petroleum Retention License No 15 (“PRL15”) and the Petroleum Pipeline Development Licence No 19 (“PDL19”) pursuant to Sections 167 and 168 of the Oil and Gas Act, 1998 (“OGA”): see Haiama Maia Nairu v Minister for Petroleum & Energy & The State (2025) N11385.

2. The plaintiff alleges that its recognition as a recipient of any benefits is critical because any benefits to be derived from the petroleum project under the APDL 15 once in production pursuant to Section 167 (Equity Benefit) and Section 168 (Royalty Benefit) of the OGA.

Decisions of the Minister

3. The two decisions were made pursuant to the Minister’s powers under Sections 169(2)(a) and (b) of the OGA.

4. The first decision was published in the National Gazette No. G. 967 dated 6^th December 2023.

5. From the notice in the National Gazette, it is noted that:

(a) the recognised beneficiaries are set out in Schedule 1 for the APDL 15, Petroleum Pipeline Licence No. 18 (“PPL18”) and Processing Facility Licence No. 4 (“PFL 4”).

(b) the plaintiff is not included in Schedule 1.

6. The second decision was published in the National Gazette No. G. 968 dated 6^th December 2023 in respect of the beneficiaries and identified and recognised to the “Right of Way” in Schedule 1-A, 1-B and 1-C, Pipeline Licence (APL) in Schedule 1-B and 2-A including the “Buffer Zones”.

Grounds of Judicial Review

7. The plaintiff relies on three grounds of judicial review. These are:

(a) Ultra vires – that the decisions were ultra vires the powers of the Minister under Section 167 and Section 168 of the OGA.
.
(b) Abuse or breach of process – they were an abuse or breach of process because of no social mapping and landowner identification conducted under Section 47 of the OGA.
(c) Unreasonableness under the Wednesbury principle – that the Minister failed, neglected, refused to consider matters relative to the separate and distinct composition of the plaintiff and its members as affected landowners for the benefit sharing derived under Section 167 and Section 168 of the OGA.
.
Relief Sought

8. It seeks an order in the nature of certiorari to quash these decisions.

9. Further, it seeks an order in the nature of mandamus to direct the Minister to amend these decisions to include it in the amended decisions (Determinations) within fourteen days of the order and to be notified as follows:

(a) an amendment by a corrigendum to the National Gazette No. G. 967 dated 6^th December 2023 to include it as a Beneficiary in Schedule 1 of the Determination as -

“Haiama Maia Nairu Clan” of Piri Village” and

(b) an amendment by a corrigendum to the National Gazette No. G. 968 dated 6^th December 2023 to include it as a Beneficiary in Schedule 1A of the Determination as -

“Haiama Maia Nairu Clan” of Piri Village”

The Law

10. Section 47 of the Oil and Gas Act states:

“47. Social mapping and landowner identification studies.
(1) It shall be a condition of every petroleum prospecting licence that the licensee undertake social mapping studies and landowner identification studies in accordance with this section.
(2) It shall be a condition of every petroleum retention licence that the licensee undertake social mapping studies and landowner identification studies in accordance with this section, to the extent that such studies have not been undertaken pursuant to a petroleum prospecting licence out of which the petroleum retention licence was granted.
(3) It shall be a condition of every petroleum development licence that the licensee undertake social mapping studies and landowner identification studies in accordance with this section, to the extent that such studies have not been undertaken pursuant to a petroleum prospecting licence or petroleum retention licence out of which the petroleum development licence was granted.
(4) Prior to first entry on to the licence area for the purposes of exploration pursuant to a petroleum prospecting licence or a petroleum retention licence, the licensee shall undertake—
(a) a preliminary social mapping study; and
(b) a preliminary landowner identification study,
of the customary land owners comprised in the licence area, with particular reference to that part of the licence area where the licensee's exploration activities are to be concentrated.
(5) If a licensee or a person makes an application for a petroleum development licence under Section 53, the licensee shall submit with that application a full-scale social mapping study and landowner identification study of customary land owners in—
(a) the licence area of that petroleum development licence; and
(b) other licence areas, including pipeline areas, which pertain to that petroleum development licence; and
(c) the land within five kilometres of any facility which would be a dedicated project facility (other than a facility which would be situated on such a petroleum development licence) of the petroleum project; and
(d) other areas which would be affected by the petroleum project if developed."; and
(5A) If a licensee makes an application for a variation of a licence under Section 58(1), to include an additional block or blocks in a petroleum development licence, the licensee shall submit with that application a full-scale social mapping study and landowner identification study of customary land owners in—
(a) the additional block or blocks that will form part of that petroleum development licence; and
(b) other licence areas, including pipeline easements, which are associated with the petroleum development licence upon variation of such licence; and
(c) the land within five kilometres of any facility which would be a dedicated project facility (other than a facility which would be situated on such a petroleum development licence) of the petroleum project; and
(d) other areas which would be affected by the development of the additional block or blocks.
(6) The Minister may by regulation prescribe the scope and method of a social mapping study or landowner identification study conducted in accordance with this section, and requirements as to reports of such studies.
(7) Copies of any social mapping or landowner identification studies undertaken in accordance with this section (excluding any information which is confidential to the licensee or to the local groups of landowners) shall be provided to the Director”.

11. Section 169 of the Oil and Gas Act states:

“169. Identification of landowner beneficiaries.
(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the persons (other than affected Local-level Governments or affected Provincial Governments) who shall receive the benefits granted by Sections 167 and 168 shall be identified in accordance with this section.
(2) Prior to convening or during a development forum under Section 48, the Minister shall determine, by instrument—
(a) the persons (other than affected Local-level Governments or affected Provincial Governments) who shall receive the benefits granted by Sections 167 and 168; and
(b) the incorporated land groups or, if permitted in accordance with Section 176(3)(f), any other persons or entities who shall represent and receive the benefit on behalf of the grantees of the benefit.
(3) An instrument under Subsection (2) shall only be valid if also signed by the Director and the Secretary of the Department of Treasury or other National Government Department responsible for financial matters.
(4) In making a determination under Subsection (2), the Minister shall consider any agreements by persons who are or claim to be project area landowners, the decisions of courts of Papua New Guinea as to ownership of land or rights in relation to land in the vicinity of the petroleum project in question, the results of social mapping and landowner identification studies carried out in accordance with this Act, and submissions from affected Local-level Governments or affected Provincial Governments of the petroleum project in question or from any other person claiming an interest or to be affected by the decision of the Minister.
(5) A petroleum development licensee or applicant for a petroleum development licence may, at any time after an application for the grant or variation of a petroleum development licence in respect of a petroleum project, apply to the Minister for a determination under Subsection (2).
(6) Where a licensee or an applicant for a licence applies to the Minister for a determination under Subsection (5), the Minister shall allow a period of 30 days, or such longer period as the Minister may allow, for persons referred to in Subsection (4) to make submissions or in the case of persons claiming to be project area landowners to advise him of agreements reached by them on the determination.
(7) Where a dispute exists as to which persons or incorporated land groups or other entities should be identified to receive benefits in accordance with this section, the Minister may make a determination under Subsection (2) or may direct that monies or other benefits which are the subject of the dispute shall be held in abeyance pending a resolution of that dispute by other means, and where such a direction is given by the Minister the trustee referred to in Section 176 shall hold such monies or other benefits in accordance with that direction.
(8) Where the Minister directs that monies or other benefits are to be held in abeyance under Subsection (7) or where the Minister's determination under Subsection (2) is subject to judicial review, the Minister may grant the licence or licences in respect of the petroleum project.
(9) Where the Minister has granted the licence or licences under Subsection (8) and the dispute is resolved the Minister shall make a determination under Subsection (2) and convene a development forum under Section 48.
(10) A Ministerial determination made pursuant to the section shall not be reviewable before any court unless an application for review is made within 28 days of the Ministerial determination”.

Competency of Proceedings

(a) Lack of locus standi

12. At paragraphs 22-28 of the defendants’ counsel’s written submissions, Ms Dusava submits that it is open to the defendants to contest the application for judicial as having no merit if the plaintiff lacked locus standi following grant of leave to apply for judicial review. The learned counsel relies on the National Court judgments of Luke Pelego & Ors v Dr Fabina Pok & Ors (2021) N8745 and Puara v Oil Search Limited & Ors (2022) N9476 to submit that an applicant for a petroleum development licence under Section 47 of the OGA is required to undertake social mapping studies and landowner identification studies. The plaintiff is not recognised as one of the applicants because it is an ILG representing a group of landowners and thus, lacked locus standi to bring this application for judicial review.

13. Furthermore, the plaintiff is not a clan. It is an ILG. An ILG, Ms Dusava submits, does not have the requisite standing to represent the interests of the landowners.

14. While it may be open to the defendants to contest the plaintiff’s locus standi following the grant of leave to apply for judicial review, even if it may be tantamount to the defendants rehearsing arguments on locus standi, it is not necessary for me to consider that issue because the plaintiff has satisfactorily demonstrated that it is aggrieved by the two decisions of the Minister to omit to recognise and include it and its members as beneficiaries for the purpose of distribution of benefits to be derived from a petroleum development project on their customary land.

15. Secondly, according to Section 1 of the Oil and Gas Act, 1998 a Land Group Incorporation “has the meaning given in the Land Groups Incorporation Act (Chapter 147)”. Accordingly, the plaintiff has locus standi because Section 169(2)(b) of the Oil and Gas Act, 1998 recognises a Land Group Incorporation to represent and receive benefits on behalf of the grantees of the benefit.

16. For the foregoing reasons, the defendants have failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff lacked locus standi to bring this application for judicial review.

(b) Failure to plead leave as sole relief in Originating Summons, failure to plead with concise description of the decisions sought to be reviewed and failure to file an affidavit verifying facts

17. At paragraphs 30-34 of the same written submissions, Ms Dusava submits that the plaintiff failed to plead leave as the sole relief in the Originating Summons, failed to plead with concise description of the decisions sought to be reviewed and failed to file an affidavit verifying facts pursuant to Order 16, rules 3(2), 3(2)(a)&(b) of the National Court Rules (“NCR”).

18. These grounds are dismissed because they have been considered and dismissed by the Court in its ruling on the application for leave for judicial review in Haiam Maia Nairu (2025) N11385 at [13] to [30]. Hence, the defendants are barred by the doctrine of res judicata from relying on them to seek dismissal of the within proceedings.

(c) Time-bar

19. At paragraphs 35 and 36 of the written submissions, Ms Dusava relies on the Supreme Court case of The State & David Manau v Eric Havai Ako & Ors (2022) SC2323 to submits that the withing proceedings is time-barred by Section 169(1) (supra) because “they have missed twenty-eight (28) day requirement .......to challenge [the] Ministerial Determination.” The learned counsel cites a statement by the Supreme Court at [38] to support the proposition that the within proceedings is time-barred.

“Under s. 169 (10) of the Oil and Gas Act, such challenge or review should have been made within 28 days of the Determination. Moreover, it was submitted that because the challenge was against a Ministerial action, the proper mode or process to invoke to challenge such action was by way of judicial review under Order 16 of the NCR. The challenge of such administrative action by an ordinary OS was therefore an abuse of process.”

20 I have read the judgment in Eric Havai Ako case (supra) and it is clear to me that the above statement formed part of the Supreme Court’s summary of the sixth respondent’s submissions and not the findings of the Supreme Court. As to the Supreme Court’s findings, they are set at [51] of the judgment as follows:

“Having regard to the above, we accept the sixth respondent’s submission that the proceeding was also an abuse of process under s. 169(10) of the Oil and Gas Act, because the respondents failed to challenge the Ministerial Determination through judicial review within 28 days of the Determination. The effect of s. 169 (10) is that such challenge must be by way of judicial review. This is consistent with the established principle of administrative law; that the Ministerial Determination being a public function as well as an administrative function, the proper mode to challenge the discharge of such function is by way of a judicial review. Section 169 (10) in our view is indeed expressly prescriptive of this mode by the use of the word “review” in the section. This is the only rationale interpretation we can give to the relief sought in the proceeding.” (Emphasis added).

21. From the above findings, it is clear that the Supreme Court did not make any expressed finding in relation to the sixth respondent’s submission that the “.......such challenge or review should have been made within 28 days of the Determination”, but that the correct mode of proceedings to commence to challenge a Ministerial Determination is a judicial review under Section 169(10) (supra). It follows that the question of whether a judicial review proceeding commenced outside 28 days is time-barred under Section 169(10) of the OGA is open to debate.

22. I received no submissions from both Mr Jerewai and Ms Dusava in relation to how I should apply Section 169(10) of the OGA in a case where leave for judicial review has been granted. This consideration is critical because it must be observed that the Court was satisfied that there was no undue delay or, if there was, it was satisfactorily explained by the applicant under Order 16, rule 4 of the NCR. Be that as it may, what is clear is that Section 169(10) (supra) was not relied on to contest the application for leave for judicial review. This is why the Court did not cover it in its ruling of 22^nd July 2025: Haiama Maia Nairu (2025) N11385.

23. For these reasons, it is not necessary for me to consider whether the within proceedings is time-barred under Section 169(10) of the OGA.

Findings of Fact

24. The plaintiff relies on the following:

(a) affidavit of David Kairi Havae sworn on 28^th February 2025 and filed on 25^th March 2025.

(b) affidavit of Baii Avae sworn on 14^th August 2025 and filed on 19^th August 2025.

(c) further affidavit of David Kairi Havae sworn and filed on 17^th November 2025.

25. The defendants rely on the affidavit of David Manau sworn on 10^th October 2025 and filed on 14^th November 2025.

26. I have read these affidavits, and noting the submissions of the learned counsel for both parties, I find as follows:

• there are two tribes: Pawaea and Kemei.
• the Pawaea Tribe comprises of:
  

(a) Nemina clan,
(b) Wa’aboa clan, and
(c) Sapusa clan.

• the Kemei Tribe has Haiama Maia Nairu clan.
• only Nemina clan of Pawaea Tribe shares the land boundary with Haiama Maia Nairu clan of Kemei Tribe.
• the defendants did not state that the Wa’aboa clan and Sapusa clan of Pawaea Tribe deny the Haiama Maia Nairu clan of Kemei Tribe sharing the land boundary with Nemina clan of Pawaes Tribe.
• David Kairi Havae is the Deputy Chairman of the plaintiff.
• PRL 15 (comprising of 9 graticular blocks) includes among other tribal/clan lands, the plaintiff’s land at the South-West bottom corner of the PRL15 area.
• the specific blocks are:
• GB No. 2822; and
• GB No. 2894.
• GB Nos. 2827 and 2894 share the boundary with the Nemina clan of Pawaea Tribe on parts of GB No. 2822.
• within GB No. 2894 is the Ne’ea Camp. The name Ne’ea is misspelt as “Near Camp”.
• within GB No. 2894 is the proposed Processing Facility No. 4.
• the gas fields including Elk and Antelope are in the North within GB No. 2606; 2678, 2679, 2750, and 2751, or thereabouts, and the plaintiff has no interest in those GBs.
• the gas will need to be piped from these fields down to the South-West through and among others GB No. 2822 and GB No. 2894.
• from the Processing Facility No. 4, the gas pipeline will again pass through the Ne’ea Swamp to where-ever the shipment will take place.
• Reuben Apae who is an executive of Nemina clan signed an instrument described as the “Recognition and Land Boundary Sharing between Nemina Clan & Kemei Tribe” witnessed by Hapsy Topae of the Wa’aboa Clan and the Sapusa Clan, both of the Pa’waea Tribe.
• in a letter dated 23^rd June 2023, the Lands Division of the Gulf Provincial Administration supported the plaintiff’s ownership of the Kemei Tribal land.
• there is no landownership dispute either currently in existence, before any Court of competent jurisdiction or physically between the nearest land boundary sharing clans, in particular the Nemina clan.
• PRL15 is now APDL15.
• APDL15 includes GB Nos 2822 and 2894 which are located on the South-West bottom corner of PRL15 (APDL15).
• Mr Manau’s reference to the National Gazette G. 969 is of no relevance to the dispute in the within proceedings apart from referring to a Processing Facility No. 5 which the plaintiff has no interests in land the facility No. 5 is proposed.
• finally, while Mr Manau claims that the decisions of the Minister were based on “a full-scale Social Mapping and Landowner Identification study” and “Landowner Beneficary Identification”, there are no copies of these studies and report in evidence to verify his claim.
  

Ultra vires

27. While I note that the Minister is conferred power, based on the above findings, I uphold Mr Jerewai’s submissions that the decisions of the Minister published in the National Gazette Nos. 967 and 968 dated 6^th December 2023, both omitted to recognise and include the plaintiff and its members as a beneficiary of the equity and royalty benefits that will be derived from the proposed Petroleum Development project under Section 167 and Section 168 (supra).

28. I am satisfied that the decisions of the Minister were arrived at in breach of and contrary to the plaintiff’s landownership interests/rights in relation to where the proposed pipeline carrying gas from the gas fields including Elk and Antelope in the north which will pass through part of the plaintiff’s land in GB No. 2822 and GB No. 2894 and the gas pipeline will again pass through the Ne’ea Swamp to where-ever the shipment will take place.

29. This finding is made based on the following reasons:

• the defendants do not deny that the Wa’aboa clan and Sapusa clan of Pawaea Tribe do not contest the plaintiff’s land boundary sharing with the Nemina clan of Pawaea Tribe.
  
• there is no landownership dispute either currently in existence, before any Court of competent jurisdiction or physically between the nearest land boundary sharing clans, in particular the Nemina clan.
  
• the members of Wa’aboa clan and Sapusa clan of Pawaea Tribe supported the plaintiff by witnessing the agreement between the members of Nemina clan of Pawaea Tribe and members of the plaintiff of Kemei Tribe for the plaintiff’s inclusion for benefits sharing in the proposed Petroleum Development project.
  
• the Lands Division of the Gulf Provincial Administration where the proposed Petroleum Development project will be established, supported the plaintiff’s ownership of the Kemei Tribal land as noted in the letter dated 23^rd June 2023.
  
• despite the above overwhelming support, the Minister decided otherwise in his decisions of 6^th December 2023.
  

30. For the foregoing reasons, I am satisfied that the decisions of the Minister were ultra vires his powers under Section 167 and Section 168 of the OGA. This ground of judicial review is upheld.

Abuse or breach of process

31. This ground requires a consideration of the application of Section 47 of the OGA. This provision makes it a condition of every petroleum project, be it prospecting, retention or development for an applicant for a licence, to undertake a social mapping study and landowner identification study. There is no evidence or submissions by parties in relation to what a social mapping study and landowner identification study entail. Be that as it may, in the present case, it may be that the decisions of the Minister were based on social mapping and landowner identification studies conducted under Section 47 of the OGA. If so, they should have been produced to the Court to independently verify the defendants’ defence that the Minister’s exercise of power was correctly exercised to arrive at the decisions to omit to recognise and not include the plaintiff in the proposed Petroleum Development project.

32. In addition, under Section 169 (4) of the OGA these studies form part of the information upon which the Minister may base his decisions. The other information may be “agreement by persons who are or claim to be project area landowners, the decisions of the Courts of Papua New Guinea to ownership of land or rights in relation to land in the vicinity of the petroleum project in question..........submissions from affected Local-level Governments or affected Provincial Governments........”. Luke Pelego case (supra) referred to. In the absence of these studies, agreements between persons, decisions of the Courts and submissions from affected Local-level Governments or affected Provincial Governments all of which may operate against the plaintiff’s claim, it leaves open the strong inference that the decisions of the Minister were made without them or unilaterally and in breach of Section 47 and Section 169 (4) of the Oil and Gas Act, 1998.

33. For these reasons, I am satisfied that the decisions of the Minister were an abuse and made in breach of process the requirements for social mapping and landowner identification studies, agreements between the parties and Court order under Section 47 and Section 169 (4) of the OGA. This ground of judicial review is upheld.

Unreasonableness under the Wednesbury principle

34. Having considered the entire circumstances of the case, I am further satisfied that the Minister failed, neglected, refused to consider matters relative to the separate and distinct composition of the plaintiff and its members as affected landowners for the benefit sharing derived under Section 167 and Section 168 of the OGA. Consequently, the decisions of the Minister were unreasonableness under the Wednesbury principle. Associated Provincial Picture House Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1947] EWCA Civ 1; [1948] 1 KB 223 and Amadio Pty Ltd v The State and Ors: Mt Kare Holdings Pty Ltd [1992] PNGLR 218.

Conclusion

35. All grounds of judicial review have been upheld. To give effect to the relief that will be granted and for avoidance of doubt, the two decisions of the Minister as published in the National Gazette Nos. G967 and G968 include Application of Petroleum Development Licence No. 15 (APDL No. 15), Application of Petroleum Pipeline Licence No. 18 (APL No. 18) and Application of Petroleum Processing Facility Licence No. 4 (APPFL No. 4), Application of Pipeline Licence No. 19 (APL No. 19) and Application of Pipileline Licence No. 20 (APL No. 20). The plaintiff will be granted appropriate relief with costs to be agreed, if not, assessed.

Order

36. The final terms of the order are:

1. The application for judicial review of two decisions of the Minister for Petroleum and Energy published in the National Gazette Nos. G967 and G968 where the Minister omitted to recognise and include the plaintiff and its members as beneficiaries for the purpose of distribution of benefits to be derived from a petroleum development project in the Baimuru District of the Gulf Province described as Application of Petroleum Development Licence No. 15 (APDL No. 15), Application of Petroleum Pipeline Licence No. 18 (APL No. 18), Application of Petroleum Processing Facility Licence No. 4 (APPFL No. 4), Application of Pipeline Licence No. 19 (APL No. 19) and Application of Pipileline Licence No. 20 (APL No. 20) pursuant to Sections 167 and 168 of the Oil and Gas Act, 1998 is granted.

2. An order in the nature of certiorari quashing the two decisions of the Minister for Petroleum and Energy published in the National Gazette Nos. G967 and G968 where the Minister omitted to recognise and include the plaintiff and its members as beneficiaries for the purpose of distribution of benefits to be derived from a petroleum development project in the Baimuru District of the Gulf Province described as National Gazette Nos. G967 and G968 include Application of Petroleum Development Licence No. 15 (APDL No. 15), Application of Petroleum Pipeline Licence No. 18 (APL No. 18), Application of Petroleum Processing Facility Licence No. 4 (APPFL No. 4), Application of Pipeline Licence No. 19 (APL No. 19) and Application of Pipileline Licence No. 20 (APL No. 20) pursuant to Sections 167 and 168 of the Oil and Gas Act, 1998.

3. An order in the nature of mandamus directing the Minister for Petroleum and Energy to amend the two decisions to include the plaintiff in the amended decisions (Determinations) within fourteen days of the order and to be notified as follows:

(a) an amendment by a corrigendum to the National Gazette No. G. 967 dated 6^th December 2023 to include it as a Beneficiary in Schedule 1 of the Determination as -

“Haiama Maia Nairu Clan” of Piri Village” and

(b) an amendment by a corrigendum to the National Gazette No. G. 968 dated 6^th December 2023 to include it as a Beneficiary in Schedule 1A of the Determination as -
“Haiama Maia Nairu Clan” of Piri Village”

4. The defendants shall pay the costs of and incidental to the proceedings, to be agreed or assessed.

5. Time shall be abridged.

________________________________________________________________

Lawyers for plaintiff: Jerewai Lawyers
Lawyers for defendants: Solicitor General