3
2003). It is not necessary to set out the details of this appeal for the present purposes. On the
same day, Peter Peipul obtained an order before a single judge of the Supreme Court
(Kandakasi J) staying the order for further polling made by the National Court in Mt Hagen
pending the determination of the appeal.
Consequently, the scrutiny of votes which was previously stayed resumed and it was
concluded on 17th May 2003. However, the Returning Officer did not make a declaration at
the end of the scrutiny upon advice of the Acting Electoral Commissioner pending the
determination of the appeal.
On 21st May 2003, Peter Peipul filed a Notice of Discontinuance in his appeal.
Consequently, on the same day (21st May) at about 11.30 am, the Returning Officer declared
Timothy Tala as duly elected in Mendi. However, the writ has not been returned to the Head
of State.
Following the withdrawal of the appeal by Peter Peipul, the Electoral Commission filed this
appeal on 23rd May 2003. The appeal was filed well within time. It is this appeal which has
come before us for determination.
Timothy Tala was joined as Fourth Appellant to this appeal by consent of the parties and his
counsel was directed to file a notice of appeal on the same grounds as the grounds relied upon
by the other three Appellants by 1.30 pm on 12th June 2003. He has done so as directed and
the grounds of appeal are couched in exactly the same terms as the appeal by the other three
Appellants.
Objection to Competency
The Respondent who appears in person filed Notice of Objection to Competency on 2nd June
2003. We can deal with this issue very briefly. The objection is against the First, Second and
Third Appellants on the basis that the Electoral Commission complied with the National
Court Order in that it organized security forces to come into the six polling places for the
extra day of polling as directed by the National Court. He argues that by doing this, it has
waived the right to appeal and therefore it does not have any standing to appeal under the
Supreme Court Act.
We consider that there is no merit in this submission. The Electoral Commission has a right
to appeal and has exercised this right. We do not accept the proposition that the Electoral
Commission has waived its right to appeal in the circumstances. The Electoral Commission is
charged with the responsibility of running the Supplementary Elections under the Organic
Law on National and Loca-Level Government Elections (Organic Law) and has sufficient
interest to appeal.
The Fourth Appellant has been declared by the Returning Officer as duly elected member but
yet to be returned to the Head of State, and is a person who has sufficient interest to appeal
the decision of the National Court.
We would dismiss the Notice of Objection to Competency of the Appeal.
Appeal