Application abuses court process: Judge

By ZEDAIAH KANAU
THE Supreme Court found former acting Ombudsman chief Howard Maliso’s application for leave “an abuse of the court process” and an attempt to have “a second bite at the cherry”.
Justice Derek Hartshorn dismissed the application, noting that Maliso had foregone his right to appeal when he withdrew the appeal earlier and after the timeframe for appeals had lapsed.
He also ordered Maliso to pay costs.
Maliso had sought leave to review a National Court decision that refused him a judicial review of the decision of the Ombudsman appointing committee (OAC) to appoint Richard Pagen as Chief Ombudsman last November.
He appealed to the Supreme Court within the prescribed appeal period of 40 days.
Maliso then filed a notice of withdrawal of his appeal after the prescribed appeal period had lapsed.
He then filed the current leave application for review on Feb 22.
Maliso submitted that he was entitled to file the application and did so after realising he had made an error in his appeal after being notified of such by a notice of objection to competency which was filed in the appeal.
Pagen (second respondent) and the State (third respondent), through counsels, submitted that the filing of an application for leave to review after the right to appeal had been exercised in respect of the same decision was an abuse of process.