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

Andama v Eoe [2025] PGNC 259; N11351 (18 June 2025)

N11351

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

OS (JR) NO. 47 OF 2025 IECMS

BETWEEN:
PETER LANGA ANDAMA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE PERMANENT CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD UNDER THE LAWFUL CONSTITUTION OF THE JUHA LOCAL-LEVEL GOVERNMENT SPECIAL PURPOSES AUTHORITY
Applicant

AND:
HON. SOROI EOE MP, MINISTER FOR PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS AND LOCAL-LEVEL GOVERNMENTS
First Respondent

AND:
PHILIP LEO, SECRETARY – DEPARTMENT OF PROVINCIAL & LOCAL GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
Second Respondent

AND:
BEN ANUBI HEROWA PURPORTED CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD UNDER THE UNLAWFULLY REVISED CONSTITUTION OF THE JUHA LOCAL-LEVEL GOVERNMENT SPECIAL PURPOSES AUTHORITY AND MICAH HUSAHAI, JAMES RUBEN, PETER IPAPE, NAPALE KIKAKO, CHARLES TIMBALU, DANNY MAPU, PIAPE RAYMOND EWE AND PHILIP HETAWI PURPORTED MEMBERS OF THE BOARD UNDER THE UNLAWFULLY REVISED CONSTITUTION OF THE JUHA LOCAL-LEVEL GOVERNMENT SPECIAL
PURPOSES AUTHORITY
Third Respondent

AND:
THE INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA
Fourth Respondent

WAIGANI: DINGAKE J
18 JUNE 2025

JUDICIAL REVIEW – application for leave for judicial review – review of decision made by Minister in appointing third respondents as management committee of a special purpose authority – pre-requisites to satisfy court before grant of leave – consideration of – applicant has no sufficient interest in the matter, therefore has no standing – leave refused

Counsel
Mr. Ben Lomai, for the applicant
Mr. Russell Uware, for the respondents

1. DINGAKE J: INTRODUCTION: This is an application by the Applicant, Mr. Peter Langa Adama, seeking leave to apply for judicial review of a decision made by the First Respondent, the Honourable Soroe Eoe, Minister for Provincial and Local Level Government, to appoint the Third Respondents as members of the Management Committee of the Juha Local-Level Government Special Purposes Authority.
   
2. The decision was made on 24 December 2024.
   

Facts

3. On or about the 16th of November 2018, the Applicant and other persons were appointed members of the Management Board of Juha Local - Level Government Special Purposes Authority.
   
4. The Applicant avers that he was subsequently elected and sworn on or about August 2019 as Chairman of the authority.
   
5. On or about the 5 May 2020, the Minister for Local Level Government suspended him as Chairman. Following court skirmishes the Applicant was re-appointed Chairman in November 2022.
   
6. On or about June 2023 the Third Respondents sought judicial review of Minister Eoe’s decision to appoint the Applicant as Chairman in OS JR 57 of 2023.
   
7. On the 11th of November 2024, the National Court quashed the appointment of Applicant as Chairman. The court made an order for the appointment of new members of the Board of the authority.
   
8. The full orders of the Court were that:
   

The National Court orders that:

1. A Declaration that the decision which endorsed the Fourth Defendants as members of the Authority was unlawful, invalid and of no legal effect.
2. An Order for Certiorari to bring up and quash the decision of the First Defendant made in Instrument of Appointment dated 7 November 2022.
3. A Consequential Order ordering that all or any decision(s) made by the Fourth Defendants as purported members of the Authority be declared unlawful, invalid and of no legal effect.
4. A further Order for a new appointment of members of the Management Committee of the Authority be made in accordance with the process and procedure under the Revised Constitution of the Authority.
5. The Fourth Defendants pay the costs of the Plaintiff and First, Second and Third Defendants on a Solicitor Client basis to be agreed or taxed.
6. The time for entry of this Order is abridged to the time of signing by the Court which shall take place forthwith.

Ordered and entered at Waigani this 11th day of November 2024

By the National Court

Justice Purdon-Sully

9. The Applicant filed an appeal to the Supreme Court and later withdrew it.
   
10. On the 14th of January 2025, the Minister (First Respondent) appointed the Third Respondents to the Board of Authority. Aggrieved by the decision to appoint the Third Respondents, the Applicant has filed this leave application to challenge that appointment.
    
11. At the hearing of the leave application the Respondents took the preliminary point that the Applicant has no locus standi to challenge the decision as he was not Chairman at the material time and that the Minister, in appointing the Third Respondents to the Board of Authority was merely complying with National Court Orders.
    
12. The question that has arisen is whether the Applicant has standing to challenge the appointment of the Third Respondents to the Board?
    
13. The Respondents take a preliminary point — that Mr. Adama has no standing. They say: “He is no longer Chairman. The Court quashed his appointment.”
    
14. Let me say at once: the law of standing is not a matter of technicality; it is a question of substance. One must look at the nature of the interest claimed and whether the Applicant is affected directly by the decision in question.
    
15. On the evidence the Applicant has no sufficient interest in this matter for the following reasons:
    
    1. The legitimacy of the Applicant’s claim as Chairman comes from the Constitution of the North Koroba LLG Juha Special Purposes Authority endorsed by Honourable Kevin Isufu dated 16th November 2018 (First Constitution).
       
    2. The legality of the above referred Constitution was considered in the National Court decision of 11th November 2024, in OS(JR) No. 57 of 2023 (IECMS) where it was found to have been replaced with the Revised Constitution (Second Constitution) endorsed on 5th August 2021 which formed the basis of the Third Respondent’s legitimacy as the legally constituted Chairman of the Authority.
       
    3. The National Court decision of the 11th of November 2024 quashed the Chairmanship of the Applicant. An appeal was lodged at the Supreme Court but later discontinued.
       
    4. In my opinion considering all the above, the Applicant therefore does not have the requisite standing to bring this action.
       

Conclusion

15. On the evidence leave for judicial review should be refused.
    

Orders

16. The application for leave is refused with costs to the Defendants. Such costs should be agreed or taxed.
    

________________________________________________________________
Lawyer for the applicants: Public Solicitor
Lawyer for the respondents: Solicitor General