- Flynote
-
Res Judicata - decision on the rights of the parties cannot be relitigated on the same issues in fresh proceedings-
whether the order of the High Court was interlocutory or final decision
Res Judicata - decision on the rights of the parties cannot be relitigated on the same issues in fresh proceedings-
whether the order of the High Court was interlocutory or final decision
JUDGMENT OF JUSTICE E TAYLOR-CAMARA, JA
DELIVERED THE 26™ DAY OF JANUARY 2023
1. The Appellant claims to be the owner of 0.0836 acre of land lying and situate at Devil Hole along
the New Freetown — Waterloo Road Freetown in the Western area of the Republic of Sierra.Leone
as the same as delineated on survey plan numbered LS4430/14 signed by the Director of Surveys
and Lands and dated 22 August 2014, which plan is attached to the Appeliant’s conveyance dated
22 October 2015, which conveyance is registered as nums o 1990 In Volume 756 of the Book of
Conveyances kept in the Office of the Administrator and Registrar-General in Freetown.
2. The Respondent claims to be the owner of 2.7284 acres of land lying and situate at Devil Hole
along the New Freetown — Waterloo Rd, Freetown in the Western Area
delineated on survey plan numbered LS 4900/14 signed by'the Director of
surveys and Lands and dated 11 February 2015, which plan is attached to the Respondent’s
conveyance dated 27 February 2015 which conveyance is registered as number 357/2015 at Page
75 In Volume 745 of the Book of Conveyances kept in the Office of the Administrator and Registrar-
General in Freetown.
3.By an Ejectment Summons numbered 46/14 dated 19 July 2014, the Respondent commenced
Summary Ejectment proceedings in the Magistrates Court against 20 persons, one of which was
the Appellant’s wife.
4. By writ of summons dated 25 May 2015, the Appatlant commenced proceedings in the High Court
against the Respondent claiming a declaration of title to the land to which his conveyance relates.
The Appeliant also claimed damages for trespass and an injunction against the Respondent from
trespassing upon the Appellant’s land.
5. On 15 July 2016, the Magistrates Court (Magistrate Ganca, as he then was), granted the
Respondent immediate possession of the land described in his conveyance.
By Notice of Motion dated 12 July 2016, the Appellant applied to the High Court for a stay of
execution of Magistrate Ganda’s order for possession.
6. By order dated 28 July 2016, the High Court (Samba J, as she then was) granted the Appellant the
said stay and issued an injunction against the Respondent from entering on, moving, selling or
leasing the land claimed by the Respondent.
7.By notice of motion dated 26 May 20 17, the Respondent applied for the order of Samba J granting
a stay of execution of Magistrate Ganda’s orde~ to be ‘deleted or dispensed’ with pending the
hearing and determination of the substantive action.
8.By order dated 20 July 2017, the High Court (Kamanda, J, as he then was) ruled that the High Court
had jurisdiction to correct the order of 28 July 2015 and accordingly restricted the extent of the
interlocutory injunction granted by Samba ! to the land claimed by the Appellant in his conveyance
and nothing more, and ordered that the stay of execution of the judgment of Magistrate Ganda
of 15 July 2015, should apply only to the land claimed by the Appellant. The court also ordered a
speedy trial of the action. It is against these orders of 20 July 2017, that the Piaintiff/Appeliant
now appeals.