Chang Yung Chi & 10 Others v Inspector-General of Police (MISC APP 4 of 2010) [2010] SLCA 14 (1 July 2010)

Chang Young Chi & Ten Others


The Inspector General of Police


The Attorney General and Minister of Justice

Court Below:

Supreme Court of Sierra Leone

Ruling Dated: 19th February, 2021.

Case No:

MISC. APP 1/2019


a. An application by Originating Notice of Motion to the High Court for Judicial Review.

b. Order Refused at the High Court and Court of Appeal.

c. What is the Correct Procedure for the enforcement of judgements against the Government of Sierra Leone?


Summary Review: Solicitors for the Applicants wrote to the then Chief Justice for a Summary Review pursuant to Cap 17 of the Laws of Sierra Leone, 1960. But the Judicial Review was denied by the then Chief Justice, Umu Hawa Tejan Jalloh.


This matter first started in the Magistrate Courts (No. 1 Holden at Freetown). The Accused/Applicant pleaded guilty to charges herein and was fined Le 558, 849,400 per the Ruling in 2009. The Accused/Applicant however filed an application to the High Court appealing the ruling of the Magistrate Court of 2009 and the said application was subsequently refused. In 2010, the Accused/Applicant further made an appeal to the Court of Appeal which was further dismissed.

On appeal the motion to set aside the judgement of the High Court was granted by the Court of Appeal but the motion that the said Judgement of the High Court be substituted and granted in the Accused person’s favour was refused. In deciding on the correct procedure for the enforcement of a judgement against the Government of Sierra Leone, the Supreme Court ruled that “the correct procedure is that laid down in the State Proceedings Act 2000.”

Oral Arguments:

O. I. Kanu Esq council for the Applicants averred that with regards the second order to rectify the clerical error, Order 23, Rule 10 of the High Court Rules 2007 must be referred to. He also argued that Section 126 of the Constitution of Sierra Leone, Act No. 6 of 1991, does not allow the Court to revisit its decision when its Coram is five Justices. Thus, Section 126 is not applicable. He also averred that the Respondents cannot complain a defect and then seek several orders. Thus, the defect on the decision should be corrected first before the other orders can be sought pursuant to that judgement.

Respondent claims on the other hand concluded that the application is without merit as the application is misconceived and based on an application to review. In citing the case of Hinga Norman he stated that the fact of the said case is distinguished from the current proceeding.


Prayers by the Applicant for an order dismissing a notice of motion for irregularities on the grounds that the Applicants failed to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, in seeking a declaration that Section 18(1) (a) & (b); Section 18 (2) and the proviso to Section 21(3) of Act No. 14 of 2000, violate and are inconsistent with Section 133(1) of the Constitution of Sierra Leone, Act no. 6 of 1991.


It was held that the process for invoking the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction is by an Originating Notice of Motion and not by motion paper.

Written by:

Farouk Sulaiman Taiwo Adedoyin.

Edited by:

Adrian D. Camara-Macauley Esq

▲ To the top