NCD Gov Parkop freed from contempt charges
News that matter in Papua New Guinea
NCD Gov Powes Parkop
NCD Gov Parkop freed from contempt charges
PORT MORESBY: A judge has dismissed contempt charges against National
Capital District (NCD) Governor Powes Parkop and two other senior officials,
ruling that the court orders in question lacked clarity.
Deputy Chief Justice Ambeng Kandakasi dismissed the
contempt charges against Parkop, deputy city manager Ken Atasoa and urban
safety director Paul Komboi on the dispute over the piece of land owned by
Capital Centre Ltd at 5-Mile which is known as Jack Pidik Park.
Details of the court proceedings were reported by The National:
Contempt
charges dropped
November 23, 2021The
NationalMain Stories
By CHARLES MOI
A JUDGE has dismissed contempt charges against National Capital District
(NCD) Governor Powes Parkop and two other senior officials, saying the court
orders in question lacked clarity.
Deputy Chief Justice Ambeng Kandakasi dismissed the contempt charges against
Parkop, deputy city manager Ken Atasoa, and director of the urban safety
division Paul Komboi on the dispute over the piece of land owned by Capital
Centre Ltd (CCL) at 5-Mile in Port Moresby known as Jack Pidik Park.
The National Court on May 19, 2021 allowed CCL to erect a standard fence around
the land.
CCL is a subsidiary of the TST group of companies.
Again on June 9, the court ordered the NCDC to give vacant possession of the
piece of land to CCL within 45 days, and subject to a properly registered
survey map clearly establishing the correct boundaries, CCL could erect a
standard fence around the property at the expiration of the 45 days from the
date of the order.
The contempt charges against Parkop, Atasoa, and Komboi related to their action
on Aug 24, 2021 concerning the demolition of a fence built by CCL. Justice
Kandakasi said there were three essential elements which made up a case in
contempt.
“One, the order must be clear.
“Two, it was properly served. Three, there was a deliberate failure to comply
(with the order),” he said.
“It boils down to what is the order.”
He said when he was making these orders then, “I was under the firm view that
the parties would do their discussions (and) agree on what the survey plan was
which will give them the clear boundaries, (to) allow the plaintiff to build a
fence.
“But no way was I under the impression that the plaintiff was entitled to
construct any fence of its own.” Justice Kandakasi said the order to build a
fence had to be subject to the building board approval – a requirement under
the Physical Planning Act.”
“I did not expect the immediate action by the plaintiff to construct the
fence,” Justice Kandakasi said.
“Now I am told by counsel for the plaintiff that there had not been any
agreement as to the registered survey plan.
“The essential element of clear orders for the purposes of a contempt charge
does not exist in the present case.
“That element of clarity that needs to be in the order is non-existent.”
Comments
Post a Comment