May 11, 2010- The National
By JACOB POK
THE Supreme Court has ruled that the National Court should continue to hear the case between Oil Search Ltd (OSL) and Mineral Resource Development Co Ltd (MRDC) over share claims.
OSL appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging a National Court ruling that refused to dismiss the proceeding instituted by MRDC.
The Supreme Court ruled that the matter should return to the National Court for hearing on the basis that the material and arguments put before the primary judge was in sufficient and the judge had erred when he dismissed the application by OSL.
MRDC and Mineral Resources Enga (MRE) initially commenced proceedings as plaintiffs against OSL in the National Court, claiming a tax credit under a share sales agreement and a deed of assumption and release.
OSL then applied by motion for dismissal of the proceedings on the basis that the proceedings were time-barred under section 16(1) of the Frauds and Limitations Act.
OSL argued that MRDC and MRE’s cause of action were “founded on simple contract” and failed to commence the proceedings until more than six years after the course of action accrued.
However, the National Court dismissed OSL’s motion on grounds that MRDC and MRE’s proceedings were “an action upon a specialty” in which there was a 12-year limitation period under section 16(3) of the Frauds and Limitations Act and the proceedings had been commenced within that period.
OSL pursued the matter as appellant in the Supreme Court and appealed against the dismissal, arguing that the primary judge had erred by finding that the course of action was founded on a clause in the deed and not merely the share sales agreement and also by finding that the deed is a “specialty”.
The matter went before a three-judge bench comprising of Chief Justice Sir Salamo Injia, Justice David Cannings and Justice Colin Makail.
While going through the matter, the judges agreed that the primary judge did erred when he dismissed OSL’s application.
The judges said: “We have had the benefit of detailed and carefully researched written submissions that were not available to the primary judge.
“However, having considered the circumstances in which the motion for dismissal was argued before the National Court, we consider that the primary judge was led into error ….”
The Supreme Court, therefore, ordered that the appeal by OSL shall be allowed to be reheard in the National Court.
OSL appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging a National Court ruling that refused to dismiss the proceeding instituted by MRDC.
The Supreme Court ruled that the matter should return to the National Court for hearing on the basis that the material and arguments put before the primary judge was in sufficient and the judge had erred when he dismissed the application by OSL.
MRDC and Mineral Resources Enga (MRE) initially commenced proceedings as plaintiffs against OSL in the National Court, claiming a tax credit under a share sales agreement and a deed of assumption and release.
OSL then applied by motion for dismissal of the proceedings on the basis that the proceedings were time-barred under section 16(1) of the Frauds and Limitations Act.
OSL argued that MRDC and MRE’s cause of action were “founded on simple contract” and failed to commence the proceedings until more than six years after the course of action accrued.
However, the National Court dismissed OSL’s motion on grounds that MRDC and MRE’s proceedings were “an action upon a specialty” in which there was a 12-year limitation period under section 16(3) of the Frauds and Limitations Act and the proceedings had been commenced within that period.
OSL pursued the matter as appellant in the Supreme Court and appealed against the dismissal, arguing that the primary judge had erred by finding that the course of action was founded on a clause in the deed and not merely the share sales agreement and also by finding that the deed is a “specialty”.
The matter went before a three-judge bench comprising of Chief Justice Sir Salamo Injia, Justice David Cannings and Justice Colin Makail.
While going through the matter, the judges agreed that the primary judge did erred when he dismissed OSL’s application.
The judges said: “We have had the benefit of detailed and carefully researched written submissions that were not available to the primary judge.
“However, having considered the circumstances in which the motion for dismissal was argued before the National Court, we consider that the primary judge was led into error ….”
The Supreme Court, therefore, ordered that the appeal by OSL shall be allowed to be reheard in the National Court.
