N4859

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

WS NO. 254 OF 2011

DANIEL LEME
Plaintiff

V

URE RAUKA
First Defendant

AND

NATIONAL TEACHERS INSURANCE LIMITED
Second Defendant

Goroka: Ipang AJ
2012: 24 August &
12 October

CIVIL – Motion seeking to set aside order of 17th February, 2012 – Order 12 Rule 8 (2) (b) (3) (b) (4) of the National Court Rules.

Counsel

Mr. R. Kasito, for the Applicant
Ms. E. Suelip, for the Respondent

RULING

12 October, 2012

1.	IPANG AJ: 	This is a motion filed by Paraka Lawyers on the 14th of August, 2012 seeking the following:

1.	The order of 17th February, 2012 by His Honour Justice Yagi and in particular orders 1 and 3 be set aside pursuant to Order 12 Rule 8 (2) (b) (3) (b) (4) of the National Court Rules.
2.	Costs be in cause.
3.	Any such order as the Honourable Court deems fit.

2.	This motion is supported by the Affidavit of Mr. Rex Kasito sworn and filed on the 14th of August, 2012.

Background to this proceeding

3.	On the 17th February, 2012 Yagi, J made an order that Paul Paraka, the Principal of Paraka Lawyers is to explain as to why there has been no compliance with the requirements of Order 2 Rule 39 (1) and (2) of the National Court Rules and explain why costs should not be imposed against the Firm. Yagi, J made the order returnable on Friday 16th March, 2012.

3.1.	On the 12th of March, 2012 Paraka Lawyers filed a motion with supporting affidavits of Messrs Paul Paraka, Kilion Gulter, Billy Bonner, Solomon Wanis and Rex Kasito. The motion by Paraka Lawyers was to set aside the order of Yagi, J made on the 17th February, 2012 and made returnable on the 16th March, 2012.

3.2.	On the 16th March, 2012 Paraka Lawyers moved their motion ex parte before Kangwia, AJ who set aside the order of 17th February, 2012.

3.3.	On the 23rd March, 2012 a week later Mirupasi Lawyers filed a motion seeking to set aside the ex parte order of 16th March, 2012 made by Kangwia, AJ.

3.4.	On the 20th July, 2012 Mirupasi Lawyers moved their motion before Yagi, J. Yagi, J set aside ex parte order of 16th March, 2012 by Kangwia, AJ for being irregular. So order of 20th July, 2012 restored the order of 17th February, 2012. 

4.	In moving the motion, the applicant relies on the respective affidavits of Paul Paraka, Kilion Gulter, Billy Borner, Solomon Wanis and Rex Kasito filed on the 12th March, 2012. 

5.	The main argument raised was that the Law Firm Paraka Lawyers has its own approval process before they have carriage of matters for their clients. The applicant says the lawyer who filed the Notice of Appearance of the Law Firm as acting for the Plaintiff did not have the prior approval. A Notice of Ceasing to Act was also filed without approval by the same lawyer.

6.	Ms. E. Suelip argued that this excuse is an internal administrative matter for the Law Firm to deal with and not for the Law Firm to disassociate itself from the actions of one of its lawyers. 

7.	On the 17th February, 2012 Yagi, J made the following orders;

(i)	Mr. Paul Paraka, the Principal of Paul Paraka Lawyers is to appear before the National Court on Friday 16th March, 2012 at 9.00am to explain reasons for not complying with the requirements of Order 2 Rule 39 (1) and (2) of the National Court Rules and further explain as to why no order for costs should be imposed against his Law Firm

(ii)	Costs of today's adjournment are subject to the ruling on costs on Friday 16th March, 2012.

8.	Paraka Lawyers can explain the internal approval process for their Law Firm to facilitate carriage of the client's matters. I have noted one of their Lawyers have breached compliance with the approval process. Not only the lawyer has failed to comply with the Firm's approval process but the lawyer's action has caused inconvenience to the Defendants, Defence Counsel and the Court as well. It is therefore reasonable that the Principal of Paraka Lawyers appear and comply with directional orders issued by Yagi, J on the 17th February, 2012. 

9.	I, therefore dismiss the motion by Paul Paraka Lawyers filed on the 14th August, 2012 with costs. I do further order that Mr. Paul Paraka of Paraka Lawyers appears on the next motion date and comply with Orders of 12th February, 2012.

_______________________________

Paraka Lawyers: Lawyers for the Applicant
Mirupasi Lawyers: Lawyer for the Respondent