Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback National Court of Papua New Guinea

Kanguma v Wal [2019] PGNC 341; N8117 (22 February 2019)

N8117

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

O.S. NO. 522 OF 2018

ALFRED KANGUMA & ORS
Plaintiff

-V-

MARYANNE WAL – as Principal of Wal & Associates Lawyers
First Defendant

WAL & ASSOCIATES LAWYERS
Second Defendant

Waigani: Kariko, J
2019:15^th & 22^nd February

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS – proceedings filed by restricted practicing certificate holder – restrictions to practice – filing of proceedings irregular – proceedings a nullity

Cases cited:

No cases cited

Legislation:

Lawyers Act 1986

Counsel:

Mr F Baundo, for the plaintiff
First defendant in person

RULING

22^nd February, 2019

1. KARIKO, J: Before the hearing of the defendants’ application to dismiss the proceedings, the court queried Mr Francis Baundo’s right to appear as counsel for the plaintiff in this case. Submissions were presented.
   
2. In the court action, the plaintiff claims that judgement ordered on 16^th October, 2017 in proceedings WS 1025 of 2004 was wrongly ordered in favour of the named claimants, and the names of the persons entitled to the judgement sum of K965,651.40 should be amended and the monies disbursed to the new list of claimants.
   
3. Mr Baundo registered an association known as Human Rights Advocacy International (PNG) under which he practices as a lawyer. Mr Baundo holds a Restricted Practising Certificate.
   

Relevant law

4. Section 37(1) Lawyers Act 1986 states that Restricted Practising Certificate holder shall not practise as a lawyer on his own account or in partnership with another lawyer or hold moneys in trust for another person who is a client.
   

Consideration

5. Human Rights Advocacy International (PNG) is not a law firm. In the present case, Mr Baundo is not representing that Association as a client but he is acting for a member of the public. He is therefore practicing on his own account which contravenes s.37(1) Lawyers Act.
   
6. The relief sought in the proceedings seeks payment and disbursement of client’s monies which, in my view, would amount to dealing with monies in trust. That would also be in breach of s.37(1) Lawyers Act.
   
7. As a Restricted Practising Certificate holder, Mr Baundo has not taken out professional indemnity insurance cover which is mandatory under the Lawyers Act for a lawyer entitled to practise as a lawyer on his own account or in partnership with another lawyer or hold moneys in trust for a client. That insurance cover is of course for the benefit of lawyers and clients in the event of a claim for professional negligence.
   
8. Mr Baundo argued that he is only handling human rights cases. That may be so but it does not relieve him from complying with the Lawyers Act.
   
9. Mr Baundo also relied on a letter dated 4^th April, 2018 from former Chief Justice Sir Salamo Injia to him and Human Rights Advocacy International (PNG), to submit that his Honour had approved of his practice as a human rights lawyer. Having read that letter, it is clear that his Honour in no way approved Mr Baundo to practice as a lawyer contrary to the Lawyers Act.
   

Conclusion

10. Mr Baundo is not entitled to practice as a lawyer on his own account. These proceedings were irregularly filed by him as lawyer for the plaintiff and are therefore a nullity. In the circumstances, I consider that Mr Baundo should be responsible for the costs of the proceedings.
    

Order

11. The Court orders that:
    
    • (1) The proceedings are dismissed in their entirety.
    • (2) Mr Francis Baundo shall pay the first defendant’s costs of the proceedings to be taxed if not agreed.

________________________________________________________________
The first defendant in-person.