A petition can be defective from the day it is filed and still go to trial if nobody objects. This case decides what happens when the defect is noticed only after the election has been declared void.
Sir Arnold Amet v Peter Charles Yama [2010] PGSC 46; SC1064; [2010] 2 PNGLR 87
Supreme Court, Waigani — Salika DCJ, Batari and Davani JJ, 9 July 2010. SCR 50 of 2008, under section 155(2)(b) of the Constitution.
What happened
Sir Arnold Amet won the Madang Regional seat in 2007. Mr Yama petitioned, alleging that statements by Sir Arnold and his supporters amounted to fraud or undue influence under section 102 of the Criminal Code and section 215 of the Organic Law. The National Court upheld the petition, declared the election void and ordered a by-election. The trial judge gave oral reasons and promised written reasons, which had still not been produced when the review was heard.
Sir Arnold applied for review. Among his grounds was that the petition had never complied with section 208(a), which requires a petition to set out the facts relied on, and should have been dismissed before trial.
What was argued
Mr Yama said the competency point had not been taken below and could not be raised on review, and that the trial judge’s findings on the evidence should stand. Sir Arnold said the pleadings were so deficient that the proceedings were incompetent, that essential elements of undue influence had neither been pleaded nor proved, and that a decision without reasons could not be sustained.
What the Court decided
The issue of competency concerns the validity of the proceedings and can be raised at any stage. A reviewing court should not refuse to consider it because it was not raised in the court below. A petitioner must set out the facts relied on to invalidate the election; failure to do so renders the proceedings incompetent.
The right to appeal or review carries with it a right to be informed of the reasons for the decision. A pronouncement falling short of reasons leads to the conclusion that there were no good reasons. Where a judge promises written reasons they should be available at the end of the proceedings or shortly after. The reviewing court may draw conclusions from the face of the record.
Under section 215(3)(a), the candidate’s knowledge or authority of an illegal act by supporters is an essential element and must be pleaded, together with the allegation that the act was likely to affect the result and that it is just that the election be declared void. The number of votes for the winner and runner-up should be pleaded. Undue influence and bribery under sections 102 and 103 of the Criminal Code must be pleaded and proved as criminal offences. The candidate’s mere presence when a supporter speaks is not evidence that he authorised or knew what would be said.
Grounds 1 to 4 of the petition were insufficiently pleaded and should not have gone to trial, and there was no evidence of how the statements affected particular electors or the election as a whole. The review was upheld, the by-election order quashed, the petition dismissed and Sir Arnold’s return confirmed.
Did it make new law?
The Court reversed rather than affirmed the National Court. The rule that competency may be raised at any stage built on existing authority, but Amet v Yama applied it squarely to review of an election petition after trial, and it is the case now cited for that proposition. The pleading requirements for undue influence drew on the strict-compliance line from Biri v Ninkama [1982] PNGLR 342, later moderated, though not on this point, by Hagahuno v Tuke (2020) SC2018.
Why it matters
For respondents: a competency objection is never too late in principle, though a late objection may still attract costs and must go to jurisdiction, not the merits.
For petitioners: plead the elements. A petition that alleges undue influence without pleading knowledge or authority, likely effect on the result, and the vote margins is exposed for the life of the case.
For judges: reasons are part of the decision, not an optional supplement to it.
What it does not decide
Amet v Yama does not say every pleading defect is fatal; later cases apply section 217 and the fair and liberal approach in Hagahuno v Tuke to distinguish substance from technicality. Nor does it address the criteria for leave to review an election petition decision, which are set out in Pundari v Yakos (2023) SC2345.
Recent cases applying it
- Simaka v Hewabi [2026] PGSC 60; SC2903 — a notice of objection filed and served late could still be entertained because it raised jurisdictional issues, citing Amet v Yama.
- Wararu v Maru [2023] PGSC 75; SC2427 — Cannings J: objections to competency were rightly before the trial court, as Amet v Yama clearly showed.
- Simon v Kapris [2023] PGSC 50; SC2395 and Pute v Apinanung [2021] PGSC 63; SC2139 — cited in election petition reviews.
Sources
- Amet v Yama [2010] PGSC 46; SC1064 (Salika DCJ, Batari and Davani JJ, 9 July 2010)
- Organic Law on National and Local-level Government Elections — ss 206, 208, 210, 215, 217
- Criminal Code (Chapter 262) — ss 102, 103
- Biri v Ninkama [1982] PGSC 10; [1982] PNGLR 342; Hagahuno v Tuke [2020] PGSC 105; SC2018
- Simaka v Hewabi [2026] PGSC 60; SC2903; Wararu v Maru [2023] PGSC 75; SC2427; Simon v Kapris [2023] PGSC 50; SC2395; Pute v Apinanung [2021] PGSC 63; SC2139
A case brief is a summary written by a person, not a substitute for the judgment. Read the judgment itself at the link given, check whether it has since been followed, distinguished or overruled, and get advice before relying on it. 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.