Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback National Court of Papua New Guinea

Miro v Secretary Department of Justice & Attorney General [2021] PGNC 391; N9059 (10 August 2021)

N9059

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]
OS (JR) NO. 777 OF 2012

BETWEEN:
LUCY MIRO
Plaintiff

AND:
SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & ATTORNEY GENERAL
First Defendant

AND:
THE INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA
Second Defendant

Waigani: Miviri J
2021: 22^nd July, 10^th August

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Judicial Review & appeals – Notice of Motion – Order 22 Rule 60 (1) (2) & (3) NCR – Section 155 (4) Constitution –Certification of Taxed Costs – Leave to review out of time – Objections to Plaintiff’s amended bill of Costs – Party to Party Basis – Against State – Material relied for Leave – Reasons for Leave – Original Order for Costs 25 September 2013 – Initial Application for Leave to Review - Plaintiff – Not heard in Review – Leave granted to review – cost follow event.

Cases cited:

Nil

Counsel:

M. Koimo, for Plaintiff
J. Kerenge, for Defendant

RULING

10^th August, 2021

1. MIVIRI, J: This is the Ruling on the defendant’s notice of motion pursuant to Order 22 Rule 60 (2) of the National Court Rules, “the Rules” to apply for review of the taxing Officers decision certifying the taxed costs on the 19^th March 2021 but filed on the record of the Court on the 10^th May 2021.
   
2. The amount is originally of K 272, 862.72 but taxed to K166.534.50 from which the sum of K 104, 571.50 is allowed. And together with GST of K 10, 457.15 gives the total sum taxed to allowed sum of K 115, 028.65.
   
3. That was originally challenged by the Plaintiff on the 10^th June 2021. A notice of motion was filed by the Plaintiff’s Lawyers seeking to review the Certificate of Taxation on the basis that K650 was allowed by the taxing Officer. They insisted on K800 for cost of the appearance of Lawyer. That met with no decision in its favour from the Taxing Master. That sum was maintained. It filled a leave to review. There is no evidence as to what happened to it after.
   
4. This is a notice of motion again against the same certification by the taxing officer this time by the State Defendants, who are complaining by the evidence of Jacob Kerenge sworn of the 24^th June 2021 filed that same day that the parties were not present in the taxation. The taxation was done by the Taxing Officer alone without the parties. The amount was still excessive even though taxed down to K115, 028.65. And it was not served on the State after that fact until the affidavit in reliance here was drafted and served. It was not within the 14 days by the Order set out above, Order 22 Rule 60 for filing of the review against it.
   
5. Hence the defendants plead that leave be given to review even after the 14 days have expired because the reason set out above give credence. It was not entirely their fault that they did not file for review because they were not aware of the certification until drafting of the affidavit here in reliance. The record also shows that the Plaintiff has also challenged the review. It would seem that both sides to the dispute are not content with the certification for reasons of their own. And the certification is of the 19^th March 2021 but filed on the record of the Court on the 10^th May 2021. The application is here is of the 24^th June 2021. That is almost three months after the event. And the reasons disclose why it did not respond in law and by rules because there was no service for it to determine its position on it and to take steps for or against it. The substance of the argument has merit because it would not have allowed as it is now given.
   
6. Accordingly leave is granted even though 14 days has expired the reasons advanced have merit to sway that leave be accorded to review the certification of the taxing master outside of the 14 days by the Rules. The motion sustains and costs follow the event.
   
7. The formal orders of the court are:
   
   • (1) The application of the defendant is upheld.
   • (2) Leave is granted pursuant to Order 22 Rule 60 (1) (2) & (3) of the National Court Rules and Section 155 (4) of the Constitution.
   • (3) Costs will follow the event.

Orders Accordingly.

__________________________________________________________________

Kipes Law: Lawyers for the Plaintiff/Applicant

Office of the Solicitor General: Lawyer for the Defendants