Aeno v Sapizae [2019] PGSC 25; SC1789 (5 April 2019)

SC1789

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE]

SCREV 106 OF 2018

REVIEW PURSUANT TO CONSTITUTION 155 (2)(b)

BETWEEN
JENO AENO
Applicant

AND
BEN LOHEHE SAPIZAE
Respondent

Waigani: Dingake J
2019 : 13^th March, 05^th April

Cases Cited:

Aiva Aihi v The State (No. 1) (1981) PNGLR 81
Herman Joseph Leahy (2006) SC 855

Counsel

Mr Mawa, for Applicant
No appearance, for Respondents

50^th April, 2019

1. DINGAKE J: This is an application for leave to review the decision of the National Court, per Neill, J, made on the 16^th of February, 2018.
   
2. The application was filed on the 21^st of December, 2018. It is not supported by any affidavit as to the facts upon which the applicant relies for the relief sought.
   
3. The applicant does not state in its application the jurisdictional basis for its application. This may or may not be fatal, and depends on the circumstances of each case.
   
4. When the matter was called for hearing on the 13^th March, 2018, the respondent made no appearance notwithstanding evidence that he was served.
   
5. On his feet and in his submissions to the court counsel for the applicant submitted that the application is brought in terms of Section 155 (2) of the Constitution of Papua New Guinea.
   
6. It would seem on the papers before the court that at the heart of the application and the review if it finally eventuates is a dispute over a piece of customary land known as “Garaluparoka” in the Kama area of Goroka, in the Eastern Highlands Province.
   
7. However, in the absence of any evidentiary material in the form of affidavits, and or court records, I am constrained to say anything credible on the factual foundation of this application.
   
8. In my mind the application ought to fail because there is nothing before me that establishes, among other requirements, that there are cogent and convincing reasons and exceptional circumstances, or that some substantial injustice is manifest or that the case is of special gravity or that there are a clear legal grounds meriting a review of the decision, as required by relevant authorities. (See Aiva Aihi v The State (No. 1) (1981) PNGLR 81 and in Re Application of Herman Joseph Leahy (2006) SC 855).
   
9. In the result:
   
   • (i) The application is without merit and it is dismissed.

_____________________________________________________________
Mr Mawa : Lawyers for the Applicant
No Appearance : Lawyers for the Respondents