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

Sinebare v Raminai [2023] PGNC 209; N10365 (22 June 2023)

N10365

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

OS(JR) NO. 64 OF 2021

BETWEEN:
DR MUSAWE SINEBARE PhD, M.Info Tech, M.Ed as Vice Chancellor of University of Goroka
First Plaintiff

AND:
PROFESSOR JOSEPH SUKWIANOMB as Chancellor and Chairman of the Council of the University of Goroka and on behalf of the Council Members DR JULIENNE KUMAN, LAWRENCE TITIMUR, DR ALFRED TIVINNARLIK, MIRI SETAE, TAIES SANSAN, LESLIE HOFFMAN, STEVEN RERE, CHRISTOPHER ASA, GAYLE TATSI and MARIA KOPKOP
Second Plaintiff

AND:
HON WESLEY RAMINAI MP as Minister for Higher Education, Research, Science and Technology
First Defendant

AND:
PROFESSOR FR JAN CZUBA as Secretary for Department of Higher Education, Research, Science and Technology
Second Defendant

AND:
JOE WEMIN as unlawful Chancellor & Chairman of the unlawful interim Council of the University of Goroka
Third Defendant

AND:
DR GORU HANE-NOU TAKALE TUNA, JOHNSON KENT WANI, NELSON AUWO, ROSE KOYOMA, JOHN SARI, STEVEN NUKUITU, ROBIN GUEBIAN BAZZYNU, WAYNE JOSEPH, LAVET GANINO as unlawful interim Council Members of the University of Goroka
Fourth Defendant

AND:
DR TENG WANINGA PhD, M.Ed Hons, B.Ed as unlawful Acting Vice Chancellor of the University of Goroka
Fifth Defendant

AND:
THE INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA
Sixth Defendant

Waigani: Dingake J
2023: 22^nd June

JUDICIAL REVIEW – practice and procedure - application by plaintiff seeking dispensation with the requirement for directions hearing and to hear substantive notice of motion for judicial review – reason being that applicants standing will be affected on account of expiry of contract in few days – no satisfactory grounds advanced by the applicant to hear the notice of motion- no sufficient cause has been shown to dispense with normal rules relating to service - it would be unfair to require the Defendants to argue the substantive review at such short notice – application refused

Counsel:

Tony Christie Waisi, for the Plaintiffs
Roy L. Yomilewau, for the First, Second & Sixth Defendants
Sembeko Pind, for the Third, Fourth & Fifth Defendants

RULING

1. DINGAKE J: This is an urgent application brought by the Plaintiff seeking dispensation with the requirement for directions hearing of this matter and that the First Plaintiff’s substantive Notice of Motion for Judicial Review, filed on the 5^th of May 2023, be heard forthwith.
   
2. The Notice of Motion, which is dated the 21^st of June 2023, is supported by the supporting Affidavit of Tony Christie Waisi.
   
3. The First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Defendants were served with the Court papers yesterday the 21^st of June, 2023 and say they had not had time to file any opposing papers.
   
4. The urgency of the application, according to the Affidavit of Mr. Waisi, seems to be centered on paragraph 10, thereof, in which the deponent states that the First Plaintiff’s contract will expire on the 23^rd of June 2023, “which will, by operation of law, take away his locus standi to pursue the matter”.
   
5. I understand why the First Plaintiff’s contract being due to expire tomorrow may have caused anxiety and pushed the First Plaintiff and his lawyer to want to have the matter heard before the contract expired, however, whether or not the First Plaintiff, would lose the locus standi to proceed to have the matter enlisted for Judicial Review and heard its arguable.
   
6. I have not found any authorities that confirm the possibility feared by the First Plaintiff and I was not assisted with any such authority. If that had been established, I would probably have been inclined to hear the matter forthwith to avoid any injustice.
   
7. In the circumstances of the case, the ground advanced by the First Plaintiff as the basis of urgency is not satisfactory.
   
8. The Defendants are entitled to at least three (3) days to answer any Court process served on them, unless the Court on sufficient cause dispenses with the Rules of service.
   
9. In this case, no sufficient cause has been shown to dispense with normal rules relating to service and it would be unfair to require the Defendants to argue the substantive review at such short notice.
   
10. Furthermore, even assuming there were compelling reasons to sit and hear the substantive review today and reinstate him forthwith, that would not have the effect of extending his contract that is due to expire tomorrow.
    
11. In the result:
    
    • (a) This application is not urgent and is accordingly refused.
      
    • (b) There is no order as to costs.

_______________________________________________________________
Waisi Lawyers: Lawyers for the Plaintiff
Wang Dee Lawyers: Lawyers for the First, Second & Sixth Defendants
Office of the Solicitor General: Lawyers for the Third, Fourth & Fifth Defendants