A badly drafted writ is not the same as a hopeless one. Villagers whose houses were burnt by police learned that distinction the hard way, and the Supreme Court used their appeal to draw it for everyone.
Philip Takori for and on behalf of Ben Komae and others v Simon Yagari, Commissioner of Police and the State [2007] PGSC 48; SC905
Supreme Court, Waigani — Kirriwom, Gavara-Nanu and Kandakasi JJ, 28 February 2007. SCA 151 of 2004. Also indexed as [2008] PGSC 3.
What happened
Mr Takori and others sued the commander and members of two police mobile squads, the Commissioner and the State. They pleaded that police had destroyed their houses despite pleas to stop, causing loss estimated to exceed K256,116, and undertook to supply particulars later or at trial. The defendants did not ask for particulars. Instead they applied under Order 12 rule 40 of the National Court Rules to dismiss the whole action for disclosing no reasonable cause of action. The National Court dismissed the proceedings.
What was argued
The State said the statement of claim failed to plead the capacity in which Mr Takori sued, the individual plaintiffs and their authority, and the particulars of loss, and that without them there was no cause of action. The appellants said a cause of action known to law, trespass and destruction of property by police, was plainly pleaded, and that any deficiency was one of particulars. A preliminary point arose as to whether they needed leave to appeal an interlocutory dismissal.
The National Court principles adopted
A year earlier, in Lerro v Stagg, Kandakasi J had refused a similar application. He held that a failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action is distinct from a failure to plead with particulars or evidence; that separate consequences follow; and that it is an abuse of the Court’s process to apply to dismiss for no cause of action when the real complaint is lack of particulars. The Supreme Court in Takori extracted the governing principles from Lerro and from earlier Supreme and National Court authority and adopted them.
What the Supreme Court decided
Leave. A dismissal of a claim on an interlocutory application is final in nature and falls within the exception in section 14(3)(b)(iii) of the Supreme Court Act. Leave to appeal was not required.
The principles. A plaintiff or defendant should never be “driven from the judgment seat” in a summary way without the Court considering the right to be heard, a right guaranteed by the Constitution. At the same time the Court has an inherent jurisdiction to stop cases that are obviously frivolous, vexatious or unsustainable. The power to dismiss is discretionary, to be exercised with care and caution and only in the clearest of cases where no cause of action is pleaded. Where a cause of action is pleaded but particulars are lacking, the proper remedy is a request for further and better particulars and amendment. Applying to dismiss without that step is an abuse of process. Where a party is unrepresented, the Court must consider all issues with particular care.
Result. The appeal was upheld, the proceedings reinstated, the State’s motion dismissed and its defence struck out for abuse of process, and the plaintiffs ordered to file an amended statement of claim within 30 days pleading the representative capacity, the individual plaintiffs and particulars of loss.
Did it make new law?
Takori gave Supreme Court authority to the National Court’s approach in Lerro. It also settled, for appeal purposes, that a summary dismissal is final in effect even though made on an interlocutory application. Later benches have quoted its statement of principle as the standard for all summary dismissal applications, whether under Order 12 rule 40 or the Court’s inherent jurisdiction.
Why it matters
Defendants: ask for particulars first. A dismissal application built on poor pleading, rather than on the absence of any legal claim, risks being dismissed as abusive with costs.
Plaintiffs: the case is a shield, not a licence. The Court still ordered a properly particularised claim, and a pleading that discloses no legal wrong at all remains liable to be struck out.
Appellants: no leave is needed to appeal an order that ends the proceedings.
What it does not decide
Takori does not prevent dismissal of claims that are statute-barred, brought against the wrong party, or otherwise doomed on undisputed facts; the Court in Kugi v Foo applied Takori’s caution and still upheld a dismissal of a time-barred claim. Nor does it address dismissal for want of prosecution, which has its own principles.
Recent cases applying it
- Application by Simon Ekanda [2024] PGSC 133; SC2666 — the Takori principles on “frivolous and vexatious” and abuse of process applied to a constitutional application, quoting the “driven from the judgment seat” passage.
- Kugi v Foo [2020] PGSC 57; SC1967 — courts must be cautious and slow to dismiss summarily under Lerro and Takori, but a clearly statute-barred claim was properly dismissed.
- Purane v Kaga [2019] PGSC 40; SC1796 — no leave required because the dismissal had a quality of finality, citing Takori.
- Lahari v Koloma [2019] PGSC 27; SC1794 — Takori cited on appellate restraint over procedural discretions, but the Court intervened where a party had been denied a hearing.
Sources
- Takori v Yagari [2007] PGSC 48; SC905 (Kirriwom, Gavara-Nanu and Kandakasi JJ, 28 February 2007)
- Lerro v Stagg [2006] PGNC 2; N3050 (Kandakasi J, 20 April 2006)
- National Court Rules 1983 — Order 8 rules 36, 50, 51; Order 12 rule 40; Supreme Court Act (Chapter 37) — s 14(3)(b)(iii)
- Application by Simon Ekanda [2024] PGSC 133; SC2666; Kugi v Foo [2020] PGSC 57; SC1967; Purane v Kaga [2019] PGSC 40; SC1796; Lahari v Koloma [2019] PGSC 27; SC1794
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.