National Housing Corporation v Papua New Guinea Air Services Ltd [2016] PGSC 9; SC1491 (15 March 2016)

SC1491

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE]

SCA.NO. 163 OF 2015

BETWEEN:

NATIONAL HOUSING CORPORATION
Appellant

AND:

PAPUA NEW GUINEA AIR SERVICES LIMITED
First Respondent

AND:

NATIONAL AIRPORT CORPORATION
Second Respondent

Waigani : Higgins, J
2016: 2nd & 15th March

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Dispute as to lands the subject of order appealed from – Need for parties to identify lands in question.

Cases Cited
Nill

Counsel:
Mr. P. Pera, for the Appellant
Mr. N. Kopunye, for the First Respondent
Mr. S. Renewa, for the Second Respondent
Ms. G. Kubak, for the Applicants for joinder (Third Respondents)

JUDGMENT

15th March 2016

1. HIGGINS, J: This is an application by the appellant, with whom the third respondents have a common interest, seeking to stay the orders appealed from pending the determination of this appeal. That appeal, though validly instituted does not operate as a stay of the orders appealed from (See s.19 Supreme Court Act 1975). Pursuant to s.5, such an order may be made by a single Judge of this Court.
   
2. The National Court decision effectively declared title to certain lands to be vested in the respondent corporations. The appellant contends that those lands are vested in it and that it has entered into tenancy agreements with the third respondents in respect of those lands. The appellant contends that the purported vesting of title in the first and second respondents exceeded the legitimate transfer of title of land referred to as "aerodrome land" held by the predecessors of the first and second respondents.
   
3. The stay orders are sought to prevent the first and second respondents from exercising dominion over the disputed lands by, for example, evicting tenants and/or redeveloping the dwellings thereon.
   
4. There is, clearly, some difficulty in isolating those properties vested in the appellant and those vested in the first and second respondents.
   
5. For the purposes of this application, the stay order, if made, will apply only to those properties the appellant claims to have vested in it, excluding properties acknowledged to have been vested in the previous airports corporations. Those were the Civil Aviation Authority and the National Airport Corporation; the corporations are now Papua New Guinea Air Services Limited and National Airport Corporation.
   
6. Kirriwom J, on 15 May 2015, ordered that, in respect of "aerodrome land" the appellant had no rights of ownership, occupation or control.
   
7. There is no appeal against that decision. This appeal challenges the decision of Kariko J of 1 December 2015 declaring all the disputed lands to be "aerodrome land" effectively complaining that his Honour's findings and orders embraced land vested in the appellant land not being "aerodrome land".
   
8. Insofar as such properties are allegedly wrongly included in the orders of Kariko J, the appellant and third respondents have an arguable case that the first and second respondents have no legitimate title to or dominion over the lands in question.
   
9. However, it is also clear that the orders will need to precisely identify the land so referred to.
   
10. I direct that the parties bring in short minutes of orders giving effect to these reasons.
    

__________________________________________________________________________
In-House Lawyer: Lawyer for the Appellant
Kopunye Lawyers: Lawyers for the First Respondent
Kawat Lawyers: Lawyers for the Second Respondent
Kubak & Kubak: Lawyers for the Applicants for Joinder (Third Respondents)