MADAM BALLU YILLAH v MOHAMED HEDJAZI (1983) SC. CIV APP. 3/81
Court
Supreme Court of Sierra Leone
Coram
The Honourable Mr. Justice E. Livesey Luke, C.J- Presiding
The Honourable Mr. Justice C. A Harding J. S. C
The Honourable Mrs. Justice A. V. A Awunor-Renner - J. S. C
The Honourable Mr. Justice S. Beccles Davies - J. S. C
The Honourable Mr. Justice Constant S. Davies – J. A
Judgement Dated
12th Day of July, 1983.
Issue:
Whether the respondent’s claim for recovery of possession was statute barred.
Facts:
The respondent (plaintiff in the High Court) instituted an action in the High Court claiming possession of all the parcel of land at signal hill Road, Wilberforce. The appellant (defendant in the High Court) argued that the land claimed by the respondent was not the same land owned and possessed by her and that she has been in free and undisturbed possession of her land since the death of her late father in 1963.
The respondent gave evidence that he had purchased the land in a public auction in 1955 which was ordered by a Court and a conveyance was executed in his favour by the Official Administrator then. On the other hand, the appellant gave evidence of how she had been living in the house since her childhood and that subsequently the land was surveyed and a statutory declaration was prepared and registered in her name. The defendant Counsel then amended her defence pleading that the plaintiff’s claim was statute-barred by virtue of the Limitation Act 1961 which ended up becoming the main issue at the trial.
Analysis/ Findings
The Court referred to sections of the Limitation Act 1961 relevant to the instant case which are: section 5(3) which prohibits anyone from recovering land after the expiration of twelve years from the date the right of action accrued to him or to the person through whom he claims, section 6(1) prescribes the time when the right of action will accrue which is the date of dispossession or discontinuation of possession, section 11(1) states that right of action is deemed to accrue when there is adverse possession of the land and section 16 subject to section 8 of the said Act provides that at the expiration of the 12 year limitation period, the title of the person who is to bring an action to recover the land extinguishes.
The Court under the Statute of Limitations, the claimant must prove either that he or some someone through whom he claims has dispossessed the held that to succeed true owner or the true owner has discontinued possession.
The Court further held that there was no evidence that the appellant’s father has dispossessed the respondent or that he was in adverse possession of the land prior to 1963 and that the appellant herself was not in adverse possession of the land for the prescribed statutory period of 12 years which made her unable to successfully rely on the Limitations Act.
Order:
There was a unanimous decision to dismiss the appeal.
Counsels:
George Gelaga-King Esq. for the Appellant
Berthan Macauley (Jr,) Esq. for the Respondent
WRITTEN BY:
Lauretta Macauley
EDITED BY:
Adel Bull