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

Korowa v Mangbil [2025] PGNC 243; N11404 (13 June 2025)

N11404

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

OS(JR) NO. 57 OF 2025 [IECMS]

BETWEEN
STEVEN KOROWA in his capacity as the ACTING CEO/DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR OF DE DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Plaintiff

AND:
JOSEPH MANGBIL in is capacity as the Provincial Administrator of Western Highlands Province
First Defendant

AND:
RAPHAEL KORLDOP
Second Defendant

AND:
TAIES SANSAN in her capacity as the SECRETARY FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PERSONAL MANAGEMENT
Third Defendant

AND:
THE INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA
Fourth Defendant

WAIGANI: DINGAKE J
13 JUNE 2025

JUDICIAL REVIEW – application for leave for judicial review – decision subject of review is that of first defendant which revoked appointment of Plaintiff as Acting District Administrator and Chief Executive Officer of Dei District Development Authority – preliminary point raised by state lawyer that leave in this proceeding has been granted earlier in another proceeding involving same parties and same dispute – plaintiff did not comply with orders of the court and proceeding was dismissed – plaintiff should have appealed to the supreme court instead of seeking leave through another proceeding– plaintiff’s application is an abuse of process of the court – application dismissed

Cases cited
GR Logging Ltd v David Dotaona & Others [2018] PGSC 34; SC1690

Counsel
Mr. Emmanuel Kasi, for the plaintiff
Mr. Epeo Minok, for the first & second defendants
Ms. Zailla Rakeken, for the State

RULING

1. DINGAKE J: INTRODUCTION: Before me is an Originating Summons filed on the 12^th of May 2025, Document No. 1, wherein the Plaintiff is applying for leave of this Court under Order 16 Rule 3(1) of the National Court Rules and Sections 155 of the Constitution to apply for Judicial Review of the decision of the First Defendant made on the 13^th of August 2024 in revoking the appointment of the Plaintiff as the Acting District Administrator and Chief Executive Officer of Dei District Development Authority.
   
2. This Application is opposed by the Defendants.
   
3. I have perused and understood all the supporting materials filed of record by the parties. I have also had the pleasure of listening to the respective Counsel in this matter.
   
4. A preliminary point has been raised by Counsel Rakeken appearing for State parties.
   
5. Essentially in terms of that preliminary point, the State argues that leave in this matter was granted and that proceedings have gone past the leave stage. The State argues that the dismissal of this proceeding arising out of earlier proceedings should be a matter of appeal. Alternatively, the Plaintiff should have sought to set aside the Orders that dismissed the proceedings.
   
6. Now to put the issues that are determinative of this preliminary point in sharp perspective, it is not in dispute that this particular matter involving the same parties seeking to review the same decision has been before this Court, in proceedings OS(JR) No. 114 of 2024, wherein the Plaintiff was granted leave by this Court per Carey J on the 3^rd of December 2024.
   
7. Following the granting of leave, the National Court issued orders that the Plaintiff did not comply with its orders, resulting in dismissal of proceedings on the 2^nd of April 2025.
   
8. The Defendants have argued that the dismissal of the proceedings concluded the matter and that if the Plaintiff was unhappy, he should have appealed to the Supreme Court or made an application to set aside those Orders.
   
9. On the evidence before me this matter was dismissed. The Court ordered that pursuant to Order 16 Rule 13(2)(a)(b)(2) of the National Court Rules, and applying SC No. 115 Nongu v MVIL, the matter is dismissed.
   
10. The matter was dismissed on account of the Plaintiffs failure to comply with the National Court Orders of 16^th December 2024.
    
11. It is my respectful opinion that the issue of leave was properly ventilated on the merits when it returned before this Court, per Carey J, and it was granted. That matter, the leave application cannot be revisited. It was concluded.
    
12. In my mind, if the Plaintiff was not happy with the decision of the National Court of 2^nd April 2025, dismissing the proceedings, he could have appealed, but he didn’t.
    
13. I am fully conscious that Counsel for the Plaintiff sought refuge under the case of GR Logging Ltd v David Dotaona & Others (2018) PGSC 34; SC1690. In that case we held that, although Makail J dismissed the application before the Court as an abuse of process based on multiplicity of proceedings that finding did not involve the determination of substantive issues relevant to the exercise of judicial discretion to grant leave for judicial review.
    
14. I did, during an exchange with a Counsel for the Plaintiff point out that decision and this matter, on the facts, are different and that authority is inapplicable. The cases are distinguishable. What distinguishes this case from that case is that the leave application was fully vindicated on the merit and it was granted.
    

I agree with the learned Counsel Minok appearing for the First and Second Defendants when he says that given that leave was granted, and proceedings later dismissed for non-compliance with Court Order, cannot, re-visit the issue of leave; as that would amount to an abuse of court process.

15. In the result, I find –
    
    1. The leave application in this matter was fully ventilated and resolved.
       
    2. If the Plaintiff was unhappy with the dismissal of proceedings for non-compliance with the court orders, he should have appealed to the Supreme Court.
       
    100. That in proceeding in the manner he has done the Plaintiff is abusing the court process.
         
    4. This Court has inherent jurisdiction to guard its process from being abused in the manner the Plaintiff has done.
       
    5. That the pre-liminary point taken by the Defendants succeeds; and the application captured in the Originating Summons filed on the 12^th of May 2025, is dismissed with costs to the Defendants; and such costs to be agreed or taxed.

_______________________________________________________________
Lawyers for the plaintiff: Sarenga & Associate Lawyers
Lawyers for the first & second defendants: Minok & Company Lawyers
Lawyer for the fourth defendant: Solicitor General