Tai v Kuri [2019] PGSC 15; SC1778 (13 March 2019)

SC1778

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE]

SCA 71 OF 2017

BETWEEN
TOGEAN TAI
First Applicant

AND
NAPILYE KURI
First Respondent

AND
PAUL PERA
Co-Operative Secretary – National Housing Corporation
Second Respondent

AND
THE INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA
Second Respondent

Waigani: Dingake J
2019: 5^th & 13^th March

Cases Cited:

Anderson Agiru v Aluago Alfred Kaiabe (2015) SC1412
Jamie Maxton Graham v Electoral Commission of PNG (2014) SC1377

Counsel:

In person, for Applicant
No appearance, for Respondents

13^th March, 2019

1. DINGAKE J: This is an application for leave to file a slip rule application made in terms of Order 11 Rule 32 (3) of the Supreme Court Rules.
   
2. The application was filed 20^th January, 2019.
   
3. The material background facts are that on or about the 17^th May, 2017, the applicant filed a notice of appeal against the decision of the National Court, per Foulds, J, given at Mount Hagen on the 18^th of April, 2017, in proceedings WS 1389 of 2006.
   
4. It would seem from a letter, written to the applicant, from the Registrar of the Supreme Court Registry, that the appeal was not diligently prosecuted. The matter was accordingly listed for summary determination before the Supreme Court at Waigani commencing 17^th of December, 2018.
   
5. On the 17^th of December, 2018, the Supreme Court dismissed the proceedings for want of prosecution.
   
6. In the case of Anderson Agiru v Aluago Alfred Kaiabe (2015) SC1412, the court held that, for the applicant to succeed in an application for leave, he or she must, seek leave within 21 days after the order disposing the proceedings. Secondly, the applicant must satisfy the Court that the slip rule application would have a strong chance of success. (See also Jamie Maxton Graham v Electoral Commission of PNG (2014) SC1377).
   
7. In this case, the application was filed well after the required 21 days, in that the Court Order dismissing the proceedings for want of prosecution was given on the 17^th of December, 2018 and the application for leave to file a slip rule was filed on the 20^th of January, 2019.
   
8. Additionally, there is nothing in the application and or the supporting affidavit that satisfies the Court that the slip rule application would have a strong chance of success.
   
9. In the result:
   
   • (i) The application is without merit and it is dismissed.

________________________________________________________________
Lawyers for the Applicant: In Person.
Lawyers for the Respondents: No Appearance.