|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
National Court of Papua New Guinea |
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]
OS NO. 298 OF 2021 (CC1) IECMS
BETWEEN:
HANENAMO DEVELOPMENT LIMITED
Plaintiff
AND:
NATIONAL CAPITAL DISTRICT COMMISSION
First Defendant
AND:
THE INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA
Second Defendant
WAIGANI: BRE J
4 DECEMBER 2025; 24 FEBRUARY 2026
INTERLOCUTARY APPLICATION – Stated questions of law before trial – O10rr20 and 21 NCR - whether corrigendum concerning commencement of the Organic law on PGLLG to the NCD lawfully corrected the commencement date – whether the stated questions concern interpretation of the organic law – whether the application is competent - submissions considered – ruling issued.
Facts:
Hanenamo Development Limited required interpretation of whether a corrigendum concerning the deferral of the commencement date of the Organic Law on Provincial and Local level Governments to the National Capital District was lawfully made under sections 89 and 90 of the Interpretation Act.
Held
Cases cited
1,360 PNGFESM Association Incorporation Comprising Retrenched Servicemen of the PNG Defence Force as Listed in the Schedule v Lupari
& Ors [2025] SC2769
Agiru v Potape [2016] N6653
Anna Wemay v Kepas Tumdai [1978] PNGLR 173
Chuan v Goh [2004] PNGLR 575
Ereman Ragi and State Services & Statutory Authorities Superannuation Fund Board v Maingu [1994] SC459
Inakambi Suingorom v John Kalaut [1985] PNGLR 238
Lau v Sansan & Hon. Pariwa [2024] N10671
Maps Tuna Ltd v Manus Provincial Government [2007] SC857
Masive v Kenderop [1985] PNGLR 105
Counsel
Ms C Copland with Mr L Dos, for the plaintiff/applicant
Mr J Ules, for the first defendant/respondent
Mr J Sogoromo, for the second defendant/respondent
RULING
1.BRE J: Hanenamo Development Limited requires certain legal questions to be clarified before proceeding to the hearing of its substantive
claim.
Those questions relate to the application of the Interpretation Act to National Gazettes publishing the commencement of the Organic Law on Provincial and Local Level Government as it related to the National Capital District (‘NCD’) and, its correction.
2. The application is made pursuant to Order 10 rules 20 and 21 of the National Court Rules (‘NCR’) after leave was granted on 19 August 2025. These rules authorise questions to be decided before the case goes to trial. The following questions are referred for determination: -
3. Ms Copland clarified that the plaintiff will not be pursuing term (1) (b) (ii) of its motion as it will advance arguments on the Interpretation Act and not the Constitution. The words in terms (1) (b) (ii) are accordingly struck through above for clarity.
4. The application is supported by the affidavit of Mr Stuart Fancy and Mr Dos. Mr Stuart Fancy is the managing director of the plaintiff company. Mr Dos is the plaintiff’s lawyer whose affidavit contains copies of the national gazettes and the instrument relied on by the plaintiff. He deposes about his views to the plaintiff on the validity of the corrigendum and how it has affected the plaintiff’s case from progressing further. In submissions counsels referred mostly to Mr Dos affidavit for the documentary evidence which I have perused.
5. The plaintiff’s substantive claim pleaded in the originating summons filed on 17 December 2021 seeks: -
“1) A declaration that the provisions of the Organic Law on Provincial and Local Level Government (herein referred to as Organic Law), by virtue of the Notice published in the National Gazette (No. G712) on 21 October 2021 pursuant to the Preamble of the Organic Law is applicable to the National Capital District and, as a consequence, the First Defendant.
2) A declaration that, the First Defendant can only impose tax on matters set out in Section 86 (1), (2) and (3) of the Organic Law.
3) A declaration that Section 42 (f) of the National Capital District Commission Act 2001 and all other subsidiary legislations which gives the First Defendant the power to legislate on and or impose land tax ultra vires of Section 86 of the Organic Law.”
The effect of the declarations sought are, that:
6. Mr. Dos deposes that the originating summons was filed after the National Gazette NG 712 of 21 October 2021 was published, and the plaintiff’s right to pursue the claim was affected by the corrigendum published nearly two years after, on 28 March 2023. Hence this stated case application to clarify the application of the corrigendum.
7. The Organic Law on Provincial Governments and Local Level Governments 1995 (No.16 of 1995) [‘OLPGLLG’] specifies in its preamble that this Organic law will commence for the NCD at a different time to the other provinces and that time, shall be indicated in a National Gazette that will be published by the Head of State, upon advise of the Minister. The relevant parts of the preamble read: -
“... MADE by the National Parliament, to come into operation–
(a) in so far as relating to all provinces other than Bougainville Province and the National Capital District–on certification;
and
(b) in so far as relating to Bougainville Province–on 1 January 1999; and
(c) in so far as relating to the National Capital District–in accordance with a notice published in the National Gazette by the Head of State, acting with, and in accordance with, the advice of the Minister.”
[Emphasis added]
8. A commencement date was published in National Gazette number NG 712 of 21 October 2021 which announced that the OLPGLLG came into effect for the National Capital District on 21 October 2021. The gazette is reproduced below: -
“No. G712 PORT MORESBY, THURSDAY, 21 October
NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT
ORGANIC LAW ON PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS AND LOCAL LEVEL GOVERNMENTS 1995
I, GRAND CHIEF SIR BOB DADAE, GCL., G.C.M.G, K. St., J., Governor-General, by virtue of the powers conferred by Organic Law on Provincial
Governments and Local Level Governments 1995 (No. 16 of 1995) and all other powers me enabling, acting with, and in accordance with,
the advice of the Minister, hereby fix the date of publication of this instrument in the National Gazette as the date on which the said Organic Law shall come into operation, in so far as it relates to the National Capital District.
Dated this Tuesday, 19 day of October, 2021
Sir BOB DADAE
Governor General”
(Emphasis added)
9. The instrument giving rise to the National Gazette number NG 712 of 19 October 2021 was issued on 19 October 2021, by the Head of State on advice of the Minister; and reads: -
“NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT
ORGANIC LAW ON PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS AND LOCAL LEVEL GOVERNMENTS 1995
I, GRAND CHIEF SIR BOB DADAE, GCL., G.C.M.G, K. St., J., Governor-General, by virtue of the powers conferred by Organic Law on Provincial
Governments and Local Level Governments 1995 (No. 16 of 1995) and all other powers me enabling, acting with, and in accordance with,
the advice of the Minister, hereby fix the date of publication of this instrument in the National Gazette as the date on which the said Organic Law shall come into operation, in so far as it relates to the National Capital District.
Dated this Tuesday, 19 day of October, 2021
Sir BOB DADAE
Governor General”
10. Later, on 28 March 2023 a corrigendum was published in National Gazette NG 215 of 28 March 2023 correcting National Gazette NG 712 of 21 October 2021 by stating that the OLPGLLG would commence for the NCD at a later time when the National Capital District Commission Act 2001 is repealed. National Gazette NG 215 of 28 March 2023 reads: -
“No. G215 PORT MORESBY, TUESDAY, 28 March
CORRIGRENDUM
ORGANIC LAW ON PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS AND LOCAL LEVEL GOVERNMENTS 1995
I, GRAND CHIEF SIR BOB DADAE, GCL., G.C.M.G, K. St., J., Governor-General Independent State of Papua New, by virtue of the powers enabling me, acting with, and in accordance with the advice of the Minister for Provincial and Local Level Government Affairs, under the Organic Law on Provincial and Local-Level Governments 1995) (No 16 of 1995), I issue a correction to the Notice of Commencement published in the National Gazette G712 dated 21 October 2021 setting the commencement date of the application of Organic Law to the National Capital District as the date of the publication of that notice on the National Gazette (21 October 2021).
This notice is corrected to give effect to the following:
“Date of Commencement”
The date of commencement shall be the date at which this corrigendum is published or the date of repeal of the National Capital District Commission Act 2001, whichever fails later”
Dated this Thursday, 23 day of March, 2023
Sir BOB DADAE
Governor General”
(Emphasis added)
11. Prima facie, the correction meant the OLPGLLG did not apply to the National Capital District (‘NCD’).
12. The plaintiff challenges the manner of the correction and requires interpretation that the correction is contrary to the provisions of sections 89(4) and 90(2) of the Interpretation Act and that it seeks to amend the OLPGLLG and is void ab initio.
13. Sections 89 and 90 of the Interpretation Act Chapter 2 (‘Interpretation Act’) are reproduced below:-
“89. Date of effect of gazette notices.
(1) In this section –
“gazette” includes any official publication of the National Government, whether or not it is described as a gazette;
“words” includes figures and symbols.
(2) Subject to Subsection (3) and to Section 90(2), where –
(a) a statutory provision –
(i) requires or permits a person or authority to do or suffer any act, matter or thing by instrument in a gazette; or
(ii) otherwise indicates that the doing or suffering of an act, matter or thing by a person or authority is dependent on publication of a notice in a gazette; and
(b) the person or authority signs an instrument purporting to do or suffer the act, matter or thing; and
(c) there later appears in the gazette a form of words that appear to reproduce the instrument,
the act, matter or thing shall be deemed to have been done or suffered on the date of publication of the gazette containing those words, in accordance with the terms of the instrument.
(3) Where the instrument indicates that it is to come into operation at some time after publication in the gazette, the act, matter or thing shall be deemed to be done at that time.
(4) The act, matter or thing is not invalid and shall not be challenged or called into question by reason only of the fact that the words published in the gazette do not correspond exactly with the words of the instrument.”
“90. Correction of gazette notices.
(1) In this section –
“gazette” includes any official publication of the National Government, whether or not it is described as a gazette;
“words” includes figures and symbols.
(2) Where it appears to the person or authority who signed an instrument referred to in Section 89(2)(b) that the words published in the gazette do not correspond exactly with the words of the instrument, the person or authority may direct the Government Printer –
(a) to publish a corrigendum; or
(b) to republish the instrument, in a later issue of the same gazette.
(3) Where an instrument is republished under Subsection (2), the previous purported publication of that instrument shall be disregarded for all purposes.”
(Emphasis added)
Submissions
14. Ms. Copland submits that a correction to a national gazette is valid only if it corrects minor or clerical errors, not substantive errors. That sections 90(2) and 89(4) of the Interpretation Act should be read together to support this proposition.
15. Defence counsel raised preliminary objections on several grounds which included the stated case procedure and it being outside the scope of the substantive reliefs sought in the originating summons, the mode of commencing the substantive proceeding, the plaintiff’s concession in the SADFI[1] precluding it from challenging the corrigendum, and the jurisdiction of this Court to decide the questions.
16. Defence counsel also addressed the substantive application to submit that:-
1) the Interpretation Act did not specify that a corrigendum could only be issued for clerical errors;
2) the offending words and the person or authority refered to in sections 89 and 90 of the Interpretation Act have not been clarified by the plaintiff; and
3) sections 89 and 90 did not apply to an organic law because it derived its authority from the preamble of the OLPGLLG and is a matter for constitutional interpretation which is the mandate of the Supreme Court.
Issues
17. After considering the submissions of all counsel, I consider the following issues arise for decision:-
1) whether the application is competent?
2) whether the application concerns the interpretation of a Constitutional provision?
3) whether the corrigendum published in NG215 of 28 March 2023 is contrary to sections 89 and 90 of the Interpretation Act and therefore unlawful and void ab initio.
1) Whether the application is competent?
18. On the competency issues raised, I state upfront that I granted leave to the plaintiff to move this application on 19 August 2025.
The competency issues raised are appropriate for the leave stage, both defence counsel were present, and the arguments of competency
ought not to be considered.
19. However, for completeness and to ensure, all required legal concerns are considered, given the detailed submissions of defence counsels and the interests involved; I treat the preliminary issues as going to the competency of the application.
20. The competency issues are: -
a) whether the application achieves the intended purpose of a stated case application;
b) whether the proceeding should be commenced by judicial review; or
c) whether the proceeding presents constitutional questions requiring interpretation by the Supreme Court.
21. Mr. Ules relied on Chuan v Goh [2004] PNGLR 575 and Maps Tuna Ltd v Manus Provincial Government [2007] SC857 to clarify the requirements of the stated case procedure and to submit that this application will not achieve its intended purposes, one of which is to expedite the disposal of the substantive claim. Mr. Sogoromo also made similar submissions.
22. However, I do not accept the submissions because it is clear to me after considering the explanation of Mr. Dos about the reasons for the stated case application, and the declaratory relief sought in term 1 of the originating summons; it is obvious to me that the determination will clarify whether the commencement gazette of NG 712 of 21 October 2021 applied to the NCD.
23. While the question refered concerns the lawfulness of the corrigendum published in NG 215 of 28 March 2023, it cannot be considered in isolation of its impact to NG 712 of 21 October 2021 which it sought to correct.
24. To me, this stated questions will decide the issue reflected in term 1 of the originating summons and consequentially clarify the reliefs sought in terms 2 and 3 which is consistent with the purposes of the stated case procedure of Order 10 rule 21 NCR as explained in Chuan v Goh and Maps Tuna Ltd v Manus Provincial Government.
25. Additionally, Mr. Sogoromo extended the argument by submitting that the declarations sought by the plaintiff in the originating summons require the existence of an existing legal right which the plaintiff does not have as the claim requires interpretation of a constitutional law, the OLPGLLG. He submitted that the claim does not disclose a reasonable cause of action and should be dismissed
26. Procedurally, it is proper for Mr Sogoromo to file a separate application for determine of whether the claim should be summarily dismissed, then to raise it in response to the application.
27. Regardsless, I consider that the issues of the existence of a legal interest or whether there is a serious controversy; are matters for the substantive hearing when the declaratory reliefs are sought. Though I acknowledge that there may be an overlap given my finding that the application will decide term 1 of the originating summons. Still, the issue of legal interests would be more effectively raised at the substantive hearing where evidence may need to be adduced to prove interest.
28. I therefore form the view that the application will meet the objectives of the stated case application as explained in Chuan v Goh and Maps Tuna Ltd v Manus Provincial Government and refuse the objection.
29. Mr. Ules submits that the applicant is effectively challenging the decision of the Minister and the Head of State to issue the gazettes and, judicial review is the proper mode of challenging them not only by originating summons.
30. I do not accept this submission because it ignores the nature of the legal authority behind the gazette and the procedural clarification in Order 4 rule 3 NCR.
31. Order 4 rule 3 NCR provides an option to a plaintiff seeking declaratory orders only to either proceed by judicial review or ordinary summons. See: Masive v Kenderop [1985] PNGLR 105, Agiru v Potape [2016] N6653 and Lau v Sansan & Hon. Pariwa [2024] N10671.
32. In terms of the nature of the legal authority behind the gazettes and the relevance of a judicial review action; it is trite law that judicial review proceedings concern the review of administrative powers vested by law in public officials and exercised by them. See Ereman Ragi and State Services & Statutory Authorities Superannuation Fund Board v Maingu [1994] SC459.
33. It is my view that, the power exercised by the Head of State with the advice of the Minister, to fix a date for the commencement of the OLPGLLG by national gazette arose from Parliament; not from an Act of Parliament vesting administrative powers in the two officials.
34. My view is that the Head of State (with the advice of the Minister), performed a delegated law-making power from parliament, not an administrative power. I say this because Section 110 of the Constitution clarifies, when laws passed by parliament, are to take effect; one way is by a date to be ‘fixed in accordance with law’. See Section 110(2)(a) of the Constitution.
35. There is no administrative decision for the Court to review. The decision to publish a gazette and fix a date derive its authority from Parliament through the preamble, not a separate Act of parliament requiring the exercise of discretionary power. I am not satisfied that judicial review is the correct mode. The plaintiff has a choice of proceeding and the decision under dispute is not an administrative decision. The plaintiff filed the correct mode of proceeding. I refuse defense counsels submissions.
36. My answer is no. This application presents a question of law to be interpreted. I find the agreement in the SADFI is an agreed fact of the obvious fact, that a corrigendum was published to correct the earlier gazette. It does not prevent a question about its legal effect from being raised, which is what this application is about.
2) Whether the application concerns the interpretation of a Constitutional law?
37. I answer no, and I provide my reasons below.
After the adjustments by Ms Copland of the reliefs sought; the application clearly seeks interpretation of the national gazettes,
against the Interpretation Act; not the Constitution nor the Organic Law.
38. The national gazettes were issued upon delegated authority from parliament to the Head of State to fix the commencement date of the OLPGLLG to the NCD.
39. Section 110 of the Constitution, provides apart from certification of laws; for the manner of commencement of a law made by parliament, in three main ways: -
Section 110 of the Constitution reads:
“110. Certification as to making of laws.
(1) Subject to Section 137(3) (Acts of Indemnity) and to any Act of the Parliament made for the purposes of Subsection (3), the Speaker shall certify under the National Seal, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the Parliament, that a law has been made by the Parliament and, subject to Subsection (2), the law comes into operation on the date of the certificate.
(2) Nothing in Subsection (1) prevents a law –
(a) being expressed to come, or to be deemed to have come, into force on a date specified by, or fixed in accordance with, law; or
(b) being retrospective or retroactive.
(3) An Act of the Parliament or the Standing Orders of the Parliament may make provision under which a law made by the Parliament may, at the direction of the Head of State, acting with, and in accordance with, the advice of the National Executive Council, be recommitted to the Parliament for the consideration of amendments proposed by the Head of State, acting with, and in accordance with, the advice of the National Executive Council.”
[Emphasis added]
40. Here, parliament clearly required the OLPGLLG to come into effect on a date fixed by law for the NCD. That law is the OLPGLLG.
41. On this point, Mr Sogoromo, raises an interesting argument concerning the application of the Interpretation Act to the Organic law. He submits that the Interpretation Act does not apply to the national gazettes which derive their authority from the preamble of the OLPGLLG and not the Interpretation Act, therefore it raises constitutional issues which this Court has no jurisdiction to decide.
He relies on the definition of the term “statutory provision” as referenced in sections 89(2)(a) and 1 of the Interpretation Act, to submit that sections 89 and 90 only apply to gazettes issued under an ordinary Act of parliament or its subordinate legislation,
not those issued under the organic law.
42. However, there is a flaw in this argument which weakens the case for the defendants. The contrary view to the submission is that the Head of State (acting on advise of the Minister) must take their authority to issue the correction or corrigendum from the OLPGLLG, not the Interpretation Act. There is nothing in the preamble of the OLPGLLG authorising a corrigendum or change in the commencement date.
43. The enacted law that provides for a corrigendum is the Interpretation Act, not an Organic Law or the Constitution.
The plaintiff’s application requires interpretation of whether the corrigendum issued by the Head of State (acting on advise
of the Minister) was lawfully made pursuant to sections 89 and 90 of the Interpretation Act. The plaintiff does not take any issue with the OLPGLLG; just its commencement date for the NCD which was published in a national
gazette, an official government publication; not a constitutional law.
44. However, I accept that in considering the questions, I have referred to the provisions of the Constitution and the preamble of the OLPGLLG. This does not mean that I am overstepping my mandate into the Supreme Court section 18 Constitutional mandate. I view it as taking guidance from these constitutional laws to dispense justice, not necessarily undertaking a legislative construction of them.
45. I am therefore satisfied that the application does not require the interpretation of constitutional law but an ordinary Act of Parliament, the Interpretation Act, which is within my mandate to decide. This objection is refused.
3) whether the corrigendum published in NG215 of 28 March 2023 is contrary to section 89 and 90 of the Interpretation Act and therefore unlawful and void ab initio.
46. This issue requires me to consider the stated questions of the plaintiff, which in summary are: -
1) (a) whether the corrigendum is void because it did not correct any obvious errors in the commencement gazette as required by section
90(2) of the Interpretation Act;
1)(b)(i) whether the corrigendum is void because it unlawfully sought to amend the OLPGLLG by seeking to delay the commencement of the OLPGLLG for the NCD, which is contrary to the intent of Section 89(4) of the Interpretation Act;
1(c) whether the corrigendum contravenes section 89(4) of the Interpretation Act.
Approach
47. These questions require me to interpret the Interpretation Act and the national gazettes. It is trite law that a rule of statutory interpretation is to read the legislation and apply its literal or plain and ordinary meaning where there is no doubt. That where the reading raises doubt about the intended meaning and purpose of a statutory provision under construction; the golden or purposive approach of statutory interpretation is to be applied. The purposive approach requires considering extrinsic materials to determine the meaning and purpose of the statutory provision under construction. See Inakambi Suingorom v John Kalaut [1985] PNGLR 238, 1,360 PNGFESM Association Incorporation Comprising Retrenched Servicemen of the PNG Defence Force as Listed in the Schedule v Lupari & Ors [2025] SC2769 and Anna Wemay v Kepas Tumdai [1978] PNGLR 173.
48. The questions posed by the application do not require a purposive approach to be applied but the plain and literal construction
of the Interpretation Act.
I therefore apply the plain and literal approach to answering the questions posed by the plaintiff.
1) (a) whether the corrigendum is void because it did not correct any obvious errors in the commencement gazette as required by section 90(2) of the Interpretation Act;
49. My answer is YES. I provide my reasons below.
50. The plain and literal interpretation of section 90(2) of the Interpretation Act shows that where a person or authority who signed the instrument which caused a gazette to be published, discovers that there are errors in the words of the gazette and the instrument; (s)he may correct the error by directing the Government Printer to:-
1) publish a corrigendum, or
2) republish the instrument in a later issue of the National Gazette.
51. Section 90(2) refers to section 89(2)(b) of the Interpretation Act to emphasise that the person giving the instructions to the Government Printer must be the person or authority who was required by a statutory provision to sign the instrument.
52. On this, I digress to address again the submissions of Mr Sogoromo that the use of the term ‘statutory provision’ in section 89(2)(a) of the Interpretation Act means that only instruments authorised to be made by an Act of parliament are captured by the Interpretation Act.
53. This submission means that the Head of State and the Minister had no lawful authority under section 90(2) of the Interpretation Act to publish a correction or corrigendum.
54. Further, Mr Ules submitted that the ‘words’ or the ‘person or authority’ referred to in sections 89 and 90 of the Interpretation Act where not specified by the plaintiff.
I do not accept this submission because it is obvious that the ‘person or authority’ refered to in sections 89 and 90 when applied to the facts of this case, is the Head of State acting on advise of the Minister and,
the ‘words’ are the words in the two gazettes and the instrument signed by the Head of State on 19 October 2021.
55. Back to the question posed, the question posed requires me to consider the words contained in the instrument and the commencement gazette and compare it with the corrigendum to determine that there was no manifest error warranting the correction.
56. It is glaringly obvious that there is no manifest error in the words contained in the commencement gazette NG 712 of 21 October 2021 with the instrument signed by the Head of State. That instrument and the gazette fixed the date of commencement of the OLPGLLG to the NCD as the date of publication which is, the 21st of October 2021.
57. Further and more convincingly, there was no express legal authority to the Head of State acting on advise of the Minister, in the preamble of the OLPGLLG from which they derived the power to issue the gazette; to correct the commencement date once fixed.
58. Therefore the answer to the first question is, yes, the corrigendum is void and ultra vires because:
2) whether the corrigendum is void because it unlawfully sought to amend the OLPGLLG by seeking to delay the commencement of the OLPGLLG for the NCD, which is contrary to the intent of Section 89(4).
59. I reframe the question into two parts to properly answer it as the question confuses the legal authority to issue the corrigendum, with the manner of issuing it. The former concerns the source of the legal authority to correct the gazette and the latter concerns how or under what circumstances, a gazette should be corrected.
NO. Section 89(4) did not apply to the corrigendum because there was no error in the words of the commencement gazette NG 712 of 21 October 2021 and the instrument. Section 89(4) does not apply. It instead protects the commencement gazette NG 712 of 21 October 2021 from any legal challenge because there is no error to be corrected.
NO. Delay was the intended purpose of the corrigendum, but it was not lawfully achieved because, there were no errors in gazette NG 712 of 21 October 2021, hence no legal need to issue the corrigendum under sections 90(2) nor 89 of the Interpretation Act.
In addition, prima facie, from the clear express words of the preamble of the OLPGLLG, there is no authority to correct, alter or change the commencement date, once it was published in the national gazette.
3) whether the corrigendum contravenes section 89(4) of the Interpretation Act
60. As explained above, section 89(4) of the Interpretation Act does not apply.
There was no error between the words of the Instrument of 19 October 2021 and NG712 of October 2021 to lawfully authorise the corrigendum. Section 89 (4) validates and protects NG712 of 21 October 2021 but not the corrigendum.
Decision
61. Sections 90(2), 89(4) nor any other provision of the Interpretation Act can not validate the corrigendum because there were no errors in the commencement gazette of NG 712 of 21 October 2021 and its instrument.
62. After these deliberations, my conclusion of the questions posed, is that it all comes down to the one issue as put by Mr Fancy
(doc 37), “was the corrigendum lawfully done?”
My answer is NO. The Head of State and the Minister were exercising delegated law-making powers of the parliament. Those powers provided
specific instructions in the preamble of the OLPGLLG to only fix a date for the commencement of the OLPGLLG to the NCD, and nothing else. The commencement date was fixed
in national gazette NG 712 of 21 October 2021 to commence from the date of publication which is 21 October 2021.
The OLPGLLG took legal effect from 21 October 2021 for the NCD.
63. Further, the act of fixing the commencement date, derived its legal authority from the OLPGLLG and section 110 of the Constitution.
64. Even if an error has been made; there is no legal authority to fix the commencement date once published for the following reasons:
65. Ultimately, my ruling is that the corrigendum published in the national gazette NG 215 of 28 March 2023 is ultra vires and void ab initio.
What orders to make
66. As to the orders sought by the plaintiffs, I am guided by Order 10 rules 23 and 24 NCR.
64. The plaintiff seeks three orders:-
1) the corrigendum be declared invalid and of no legal effect,
2) NG 712 of 21 October 2021 be declared valid; and
3) the Organic Law on Provincial and Local Level Governments 1995 be declared to apply to the NCD from 21 October 2021.
65. The proposed orders are consistent with answers to the stated questions and results in reaching finality of the substantive claim. Order 10 rules 23(b) NCR allows for entry of orders where the questions have been decided.
Orders
I therefore exercise my discretion under Order 10 rules 23 and 24 NCR to issue the following orders:
Ruling and Orders accordingly,.
Lawyers for the plaintiff/applicant: Kendekali Lawyers
Lawyer for the first defendant: NCDC Legal Division
Lawyer for the second defendant: Solicitor General
[1] Statement of Agreed and Disputed facts and Issues.
[2] Mokagaha Land Group Incorporated v Tanomotu Land Group Incorporated & Ors [2025] N11166 at [51].
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/pg/cases/PGNC/2026/59.html