Sakai v Natto [2014] PGSC 22; SC1347 (27 May 2014)

SC1347

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE]

SCA NO. 70 OF 2014

BETWEEN

MARK SAKAI
Appellant

AND

JOHN KAPI NATTO
Respondent

Waigani: Kassman, J
2014: May 22nd And 27th

Counsel

Francis Alua, for the Appellant
Edward Waifaf, for the Respondent

Legislation cited:
Supreme Court Act Section 14(3)(b)
Supreme Court Rules Order 7 rules 1 and 2

DECISION
(Application for Leave to Appeal)

27th May, 2014

1. The National Court proceedings, the subject of this application arose from challenges to the election of the Management Committee of the Namo'aporo Landowners Association Inc which represents the Fasu Landowner of the Kubutu Oil Project within Southern Highlands Province.
   
2. Mark Sakai ("Sakai") and John Kapi Natto ("Natto") were both members of the Management Committee until 20 October 2010 when Sakai replaced Natto as Chairman.
   
3. Natto challenged Sakai's election as Chairman in the National Court proceedings OS 647 of 2010 filed on 1 November 2010.
   
4. On 13 February 2013, the National Court declared as null and void the election of Sakai and his management committee. Amongst a number of orders made, the National Court also appointed an interim management committee headed by Natto and that a fresh election of the management committee be conducted on or by 8 March 2013.
   
5. In a sign of acceptance of these orders and cooperation between Natto and Sakai, they both consented to further orders of directions of the National Court on 23 April 2013 agreeing to the extension of time for the conduct of fresh election for the management committee to 10 August 2013 and other detailed directions as to govern the processes and procedures for matters leading up to the election and the actual conduct of the election.
   
6. Orders were later made on 28 September 2013 extending further the date for the conduct of elections to 29 November 2013.
   
7. On 29 November 2013, the meeting of the association was convened. A dispute arose.
   
8. Sakai and Natto then returned to Court with separate applications. Natto sought orders to make his interim committee a substantive appointment for three (3) years. Sakai sought orders that certain persons be recognized as duly elected chairman of certain ILGs and thus eligible voters in the fresh election of the management committee.
   
9. On 8 May 2014, the National Court refused both applications by Natto and Sakai and again reaffirmed its order of 13 February 2013 and ordered that the fresh elections proceed on 30 May 2014. The Court also ordered that any challenges to the validity of the conduct of those fresh elections should be taken up by fresh proceedings. The National Court reinstated the underlying concern that there must be finality to those proceedings.
   
10. Natto wants the fresh election to be conducted on 30 May 2014 as ordered by the National Court.
    
11. Sakai seeks leave of this Court to review the decision of the National Court of 8 May 2014.
    
12. Sakai submits the National Court order of 8 May 2014 was an interlocutory decision of the National Court and seeks leave to appeal pursuant to section 14(3)(b) of the Supreme Court Act and order 7 rules 1 and 2 of the Supreme Court Rules.
    
13. I disagree. The ruling of the Court of 8 May 2014 was a refusal to entertain the applications of both Natto and Sakai. The Court merely reinstated its substantive decision by order of 13 February 2013 and extended time for compliance with the order to conduct fresh elections on a new date on 30 May 2014.
    
14. The National Court reiterated its position. The issues before Natto and Sakai were substantively determined by the Court on 13 February 2013. The orders to conduct fresh elections were orders consequential to the substantive resolution of the dispute between Natto and Sakai.
    
15. Sakai has failed to demonstrate that he has an arguable and prima facie case that the National Court was wrong in its decision of 8 May 2014. The rights of the parties have been finally determined.
    
16. There must be finality to this litigation.
    
17. Fresh elections must be conducted on 30 May 2014 as ordered by the National Court.
    
18. Costs shall follow the event.
    
19. Formal orders of the Court are:
    
    1. The application for leave to appeal is refused.
       
    2. The Applicant shall pay the Respondent's costs of the application on a party/party basis, to be taxed, if not agreed.
       
    3. Time is abridged.
       

Judgment accordingly:

_____________________________________________________________
Elemi Lawyers: Lawyers for the Applicant
Edward M Waifaf Lawyers: Lawyers for the Respondent