Court finds grounds for appeal

THE Supreme Court has found that there is an arguable case in an appeal against a National Court decision that dismissed contempt proceedings filed against Central Bank of Papua New Guinea and its governor Loi Bakani.
The contempt proceedings against Bakani and the bank was filed by AUS-PNG Research and Resource Impex Ltd (APRRIL) for alleged breaches of court orders of Feb 2, 2007, asserting that Bakani failed to issue its gold exporting licences for the years 2010-2016 as per that court order.
On June 16, the National Court ruled in favour of Bakani’s defence motion and dismissed the contempt proceedings for being vexatious, frivolous and abuse of court process.
The court further stayed any actions unless APRRIL settle its outstanding judicial costs in the sum of K77,026. 40 and K70,000 endured in court proceedings to be settled within 30 days of that order.
However, last Saturday, Justice Alan David, sitting as a single Supreme Court judge, granted a stay sought by APRRIL pending determination of an appeal it filed against the National Court decision of June 16.
Justice David found that on the face of the record, there was an indication of apparent error of law or procedure in which the contempt proceedings against Bakani and Central Bank was dismissed.
This was because the judge found that the order for dismissal of the contempt proceedings was sought in the alternative, as he found that a close examination of the National Court Rules invoked by Bakani and Central Bank seemed to suggest a possible prohibition against prospective “filing of further proceedings on the same or substantiality the same cause of action as that on which that claim for relief was founded”.
Lawyer John Napu, for APRRIL, contends that the stay was necessary for preservation of the status quo because the decision and orders made only go to frustrate APRRIL from bringing the real issues to the fore and be dealt with by the appropriate court on their merits.
“In addition, the order for the dismissal of the contempt proceedings for being vexatious, frivolous and abuse of court process under the Order 12 Rule 40 (1) of the National Court Rules was sought in alternative” the judge said.