Election petition reviews have their own Division of the Rules, their own forms, their own fee and security, and their own timetable. They are the most heavily regulated proceeding in the Supreme Court.
Order 5 Rule 7
“Decision” means any decision of the National Court regarding an election petition that is susceptible to review under s 155(2)(b) of the Constitution and, for the avoidance of doubt, includes a decision to refuse an objection to competency of the petition and a decision to refuse a no-case submission made after the close of the petitioner’s case at the trial of the petition.
“Election petition review” means a review under s 155(2)(b) of a decision of the National Court made pursuant to Part XVIII of the Organic Law on National and Local-Level Government Elections.
“Respondent” means the Electoral Commission and the party in whose favour a decision is made.
The words for the avoidance of doubt tell you what was in issue. Two interlocutory decisions are expressly brought within the Division: a decision to refuse an objection to competency, and a decision to refuse a no-case submission made after the close of the petitioner’s case. Both are decisions a respondent to a petition would want reviewed at once, since neither disposes of the petition.
There is no appeal
Election petitions are determined by the National Court under Part XVIII of the Organic Law on National and Local-level Government Elections, and the Organic Law provides for finality. Review under section 155(2)(b) of the Constitution is the route to the Supreme Court.
Section 15(2) of the Supreme Court Act reflects the same idea from the other direction: a Judge may reserve a case or point for the Supreme Court notwithstanding that the determination of the Judge or of the Court is expressed to be final or without appeal.
Rules 8, 9 and 17
Rule 8 — a party aggrieved by a decision of the National Court in an election petition brought under Part XVIII of the Organic Law shall file an application for an election petition review.
Rule 9 — an application for an election petition review in respect of a decision referred to under Rule 8 lies to the Court with leave only.
Rule 16 — the application for leave shall be made before a Judge.
Rule 17 — a decision to grant or a refusal to grant leave is final and shall not be subject to further review.
It cuts both ways: neither the applicant refused leave nor the respondent aggrieved by a grant has any further remedy. The single Judge’s decision on leave ends that question.
That places a premium on getting the leave application right first time. See filing an election petition review.
Rules 12 and 13
The filing fee for the application for leave shall be K750.00.
At the time of filing the application for leave, the applicant shall deposit in the Registrar’s Trust Account, the sum of K5,000.00 as security for costs.
Order 7 Rule 24 provides that unless the court otherwise directs no security for costs of an appeal to the court shall be required. In an election petition review, security is fixed by the Rules, is payable at filing, and is not discretionary.
Both sums must be dealt with when the application is filed. An application filed without the deposit is not compliant.
Rules 14 and 18
Rule 14 — the application for leave shall be filed and served within 14 days after the decision sought to be reviewed, or within such time as extended by a Judge, upon application filed within that 14-day period.
Rule 18 — the application for review shall be filed within 14 days from the date of grant of leave, or within such further extended period as the Judge determines upon application made within those 14 days.
Both extensions must be applied for inside the period they extend — the same structure as section 17 of the Act for appeals. See the time limits.
Rules 21 and 22
The application for review shall, amongst other things, include the date and time fixed by the Registrar for the Directions Hearing before a Judge of the Supreme Court.
The date fixed for the Directions Hearing shall not exceed 14 days from the filing of the application.
So an election petition review is on a directions timetable within a fortnight of filing — far faster than the monthly callover cycle under Order 13. Order 13 Rule 6(3) confirms the difference: an application for review of an election petition shall proceed as provided in Order 5 Division 4, while all other matters go through the callover.
The reason for the regime
Every feature of Division 2 points the same way: a 14-day period to seek leave, a 14-day period to file the review once leave is granted, a Directions Hearing not exceeding 14 days from filing, a leave decision that is final and not subject to further review, and security fixed by the Rules rather than left to discretion.
A seat in Parliament is either validly held or it is not, and the question cannot sit unanswered through a monthly callover cycle. Order 13 Rule 6(3) takes election petition reviews out of the ordinary listing process for the same reason.
The consequence for a practitioner is that these matters are run on a compressed timetable from the day the National Court decision is given. Everything — the affidavit, the annexures, the fee, the K5,000 deposit — has to be ready inside a fortnight.
Sources
- Supreme Court Rules 2012 — O 5 Div 2, rr 7–22; O 7 r 24; O 13 r 6
- Constitution of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea — s 155(2)(b)
- Supreme Court Act (Chapter 37) — ss 15, 17
- Organic Law on National and Local-level Government Elections — Part XVIII
Before relying on anything here, read the current text of the Supreme Court Rules 2012 and check for later amendments. If a decision matters to you, get advice — start with the Office of the Public Solicitor, or find a firm in the law firms directory.