COURT: SUPREME COURT OF SIERRA LEONE
CORAM:
Hon. Justice C.O.E Cole - Chief Justice
Hon. Justice S. C. W. Betts JSC
Hon. Justice E. Livesey Luke JSC
Hon. Justice S. J. Forster JSC
Hon. Justice S. Beccles-Davies JA
SC. Civ. App. No. 3/74
BETWEEN
AYO WILSON - APPELLANT
AND
JAMES SAMURA AND PA KOROMA - RESPONDENT
REPRESENTATION
S. Hudson Harding for the Appellant
G. Okeke for the Respondent
JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 1975
FACTS:
The matter concerns a piece of land located at Kingtom, off Hennessy Street. The Respondents were tenants of Mr. Lucian Genet, the fee simple owner of the said land. The title to land was later conveyed to the Appellant by a Deed of Conveyance which effectually passed title from Mr Genet to the Appellant. The Appellant issued a Writ of Summons on the 18th day of September, 1970 claiming declaration of title to land; possession of the said land and mesne profits from November, 1965 until possession is given up. The Respondents in their defence averred that the said land was given to them to build by Mr. Lucien Genet and Mrs. Genet.
ISSUES:
At the close of the pleadings, it would appear that the main issues to be determined by the High Court were:
A. Was Lucien Genet, previous to the 17TH August, 1961 the fee simple owner absolute in possession of the said land?
B. If so, did he effectively in law pass that interest to the Appellant?
C. What was the nature of the interests of the Respondents in the said land?
D. Were their interests such as to encumber the said land legally and equitably as alleged in their respective defences?
E. If so, did the appellant have notice in law of any such encumbrance?
F. Did any of the Statute of Limitations apply?
FINDINGS
The Court held that the burden of proof was on the Appellant to prove that she was the fee simple owner of the said land and that she bought without notice, actual, constructive or implied of any legal or equitable encumbrance which would prevent the fee simple ownership in the said land legally passing on to her. The Appellant led evidence which was corroborated by Mr. Genet. The Court further noted through the evidence that was led that the Respondents were equally informed by Mr. Genet about the transfer of title after the acquisition of the land by the Appellant.
DECISION OF THE COURT
It was held that the Respondents were originally monthly tenants of the said land with Mr. Lucian Genet as their Landlord. It was not established that the Respondents built on the said land under any special circumstance; and that thus they subsequently became tenants of the Appellant on the 17th August 1961 when the Appellant acquired the fee simple ownership in possession of the said land.
ANALYSIS
The Respondents were unable to establish their case. The claims made were not backed by evidence that the land was given to them to build on by Mr. Lucian Genet, the previous fee simple owner. That Court noted that there was nothing in the agreement to prove that the Respondents will absolutely become the owners of the land they had built on after payment of ten years rent fees. Their inability to establish facts backed up with evidence also prevented them from relying on the equitable doctrine of proprietary estoppel. On the other hand, the Appellant was able to establish every claim that was made and canvassed in her argument
ORDER/ DECISION:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and order of the Court of Appeal as well as the judgment and order of the High Court.
Written by: Abu Bakarr Marrah
EDITED BY:Frederick Ishmael Bockarie Esq.