Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea |
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE
SCA NO. 102 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
PAPUA NEW GUINEA LAW SOCIETY
Appellant
AND:
DAVID RICKEY COOPER
Respondent
Waigani: Manuhu, Yagi, Sawong, JJ.
2016: October, 29 & November, 30.
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Competency – Conduct of appellant post-judgment – Estoppel, waiver and contract – Relevant principles.
Cases cited:
Marape v O’Neill (2016) SC 1486,
Neville v NEC & Ors [2015] PNGSC 17.
Counsel:
T. Griffiths, for the Appellant
The Respondent, In Person
30th November, 2016
“22. We state below some of the relevant principles which apply to an objection to competency of an appeal.
(i) An appeal may be incompetent if it does not comply with the requirements of the Supreme Court Act and or the SCR: Chris Haiveta v Paias Wingti & Others (1994) PNGLR 189.
(ii) A respondent who objects to the competency of an appeal or of an application for leave to appeal filed pursuant to Order 10 of the SCR can file an objection to competency of the appeal pursuant to Order 11 Rule 28 of the SCR.
(iii) The objection to competency must itself be competent, i.e., it must comply with the SCR: The State of Papua New Guinea v Kubor Earthmoving (PNG) Pty Ltd [1985] PNGLR 448; Patterson Lowa v Wapula Akipe [1991] PNGLR 265; PNG Forest Authority v Securimax Security Pty Ltd (2003) SC717; Gregory Puli Manda v Yatala Limited (2005) SC795; Jeffrey Turia v Gabriel Nelson (2008) SC949, Pacific Equities & Investments Ltd v. Teup Goledu (2009) SC962.
(iv) An objection to competency of an appeal may be raised at any time before judgment at the discretion of the Court: Chief Inspector Robert Kalasim v Tangane Koglwa (2006) SC 828.
(v) A proper ground of objection to competency is one that goes to the Court's jurisdiction: Waghi Savings and Loans Society Ltd v Bank South Pacific Ltd (1980) SC185; Jeffrey Turia v Gabriel Nelson (supra), Talibe Hegele v Tony Kila (2011) SC1124; Coca Cola Amatil (PNG) Ltd v Joshua Yanda (2012) SC1221. In PNG Forest Authority v Securimax Security Pty Ltd (supra), Sakora, J held that an objection to competency must raise serious threshold issues concerning legality or viability or otherwise of a particular process.
“23. Some examples of what are considered as proper grounds of objection were identified in Jeffrey Turia v Gabriel Nelson (supra) at paragraph 7 of the judgment and these are:
(i) That the application for leave to appeal was not filed as a separate document, in cases where some of the grounds of appeal required leave and some did not: Yakham & The National v Merriam & Merriam (1997) SC533.
(ii) That the application for leave did not adequately state the nature of the case, the questions involved and the reason that leave should be given, as required by Order 7, Rule 2(c) of the SCR: Gigmai Awal v Salamo Elema [2000] PNGLR 288; Placer (PNG) Ltd v Anthony Harold Leivers (2007) SC899.
(iii) That the application for leave was, without leave, filed outside the 40-day period allowed by Section 17 of the Supreme Court Act: The State v John Tuap (2004) SC675.
(iv) That the application for leave refers to questions of law or fact not raised in the National Court: Chief Inspector Robert Kalasim v Tangane Koglwa (supra).
(v) That the applicant for leave did not have a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the National Court decision that it wishes to appeal against: Porgera Joint Venture v Joshua Siapu Yako (2008) SC916.
“24. Some examples of grounds of objection that do not raise the question of jurisdiction were also identified in Jeffrey Turia v Gabriel Nelson (supra) at paragraph 9 of the judgment and these are:
(i) That the application for leave had been filed unnecessarily, i.e., where the objecting party points out that leave to appeal was not actually required. It is now settled law that an unnecessary application for leave to appeal is not necessarily incompetent: Boyepe Pere v Emmanuel Ningi (2003) SC711; Oio Aba v MVIL (2005) SC779 and The State v John Talu Tekwie (2006) SC843.
(ii) That the application for leave to appeal was not served on the respondent: see Gigmai Awal v Salamo Elema [2000] PNGLR 288 where the Supreme Court pointed out that the Rules do not require an application for leave to appeal to be served on other parties.
(iii) That the proposed grounds of appeal referred to in the application for leave to appeal lack merit: The State v John Talu Tekwie (supra).
“25. In Jeffrey Turia v Gabriel Nelson (supra), it was held that it is not a proper ground of objection to competency of an application for leave to appeal that the proposed grounds of appeal, amongst other things, are frivolous or vexatious.”
“7. The wording of Order 7 Rule 15 Supreme Court Rules 2012 is clear. It concerns an objection to the competency of an appeal or of an application for leave to appeal. As this Court said in Waghi Savings and Loan Society Ltd v. Bank of South Pacific Ltd (1980) SC185, an objection to competency:
".... is really an objection to the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the point...."
“8. As mentioned in Ramu Nico Management (MCC) Ltd v. Eddie Tarsie (2010) SC1056, this decision has been referred to with approval in the cases of State v. John Talu Tekwie (2006) SC843 and Jeffrey Turia v. Gabriel Nelson (2008) SC949 amongst others.
“9. More recently in Joseph Nandali v. Curtain Bros Ltd (2012) SC1483, the Court said:
"Unless the effect of a notice of objection to competency is that, if upheld, this Court has no jurisdiction at all to entertain the appeal as instituted by the notice of appeal, the objection must be dismissed."
and in Coca Cola Amatil ( PNG) Ltd v. Joshua Yanda (2012) SC1221 the Court said:
"The importance........ of recognising that an objection must go to the competency of the appeal, not a ground of appeal per se cannot be over-emphasised."
Orders accordingly,
________________________________________________________________
Ashurst Lawyers : Lawyer for the Appellant
Warner Shand Lawyers : Lawyer for the Respondent
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/pg/cases/PGSC/2016/69.html