SIERRALII SUPREME COURT BULLETIN
COURT: SUPREME COURT OF SIERRA LEONE
CORAM
The Hon. Justice Dr. A. B. Timbo - C J
Hon. Justice S. C. E. Warne - J S C
Hon. Justice E. C. Thompson- Davis - J S C
Hon. Justice M. O. Adophy - J S C
Hon. Justice P. E. Macauley - J A
SC. Civ. App. No. /2000
BETWEEN
Precious Minerals Marketing Company (Sierra Leone) Limited - APPELLANT
AND
Sheik Abdulai Aledulkaliq Bin-Rafaah -RESPONDENT
REPRESENTATION
F. M. Carew Esq., for the Appellant
D. S. Vincent Esq., for the Respondent
RULING DELIVERED ON THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2005
FACT:
The appeal arose from a petition filed in the High Court by Sheikh Abdullai Aledulkaliq Bin-Rafaah (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent), against Precious Minerals Marketing Company (Sierra Leone) Ltd (herein after referred to as the Appellant). The petition was made on the principal ground that the company be wound up pursuant to the provisions of the Companies Act, Cap 249 of the Laws of Sierra Leone. The Appellant challenged, by way of a preliminary objection, the court’s jurisdiction to hear the petition by virtue of the Petitioner’s non-compliance with the mandatory provision of Rule 32 of the Winding up Rules 1929. Following this preliminary objection, a ruling was made by the High Court to strike out the petition. Subsequently, the Respondent herein, on the 4th January 1999, filed a Notice of Appeal against the ruling/order made by the High Court dated the 23rd October, 1998. The issue for determination was whether the decision made by the High Court was a final one or an interlocutory ruling, and the Petitioner also sought to have the Petition that had been struck out by the High Court reinstated in the Companies Winding Up registry. The Court of Appeal, by its majority decision / ruling, allowed the appeal. The Appellant then subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court on the grounds that the majority decision of the Court of Appeal, per incuriam ignored the laid down higher judicial precedent on the effect of non-compliance with statutory provisions and case law on the issue, also that the majority ruling or decision of the court of Appeal was wrong in law in waiving the mandatory provisions of Rule 11(5) of the Current Rules of the Court of Appeal, inter alia.
ISSUES:
The central questions in this appeal are:
1. Whether the Notice of Appeal was made within the time prescribed by the Rules of the Court of Appeal?
2. Whether relief could be granted to reinstate the petition where there was no appeal against the order dismissing the application for the reinstatement of the petition.
FINDING/ANALYSIS:
The Honourable Justice Warne in the determination of the first issue, which is whether the notice of appeal was done, considered whether the Notice of Appeal was filed within the time prescribed by the Rules of the Court of Appeal. In which case, the relevant rule in the Court of Appeal Rules P.N. 29 of 1985, Rule 11(1) provides that: ‘No appeal shall be brought after the expiration of fourteen days in the case of an appeal against an interlocutory decision….’ thus since the decision of the High Court on the 23rd October, 1998 was an interlocutory ruling, the Notice of Appeal was deemed to have been made out of time as it was filed on the 9th January, 1999.
Also the Honourable Justice - in considering whether the court could, amongst the reliefs sought in the notice of appeal, grant or order a reinstatement of the petition where no specific appeal was made to the Court of Appeal - ruled that it cannot be done, because there was no specific appeal to that effect.
ORDER/DECISION
The Supreme Court set aside the decision and orders made by the Court of Appeal, and restored the orders made by the High Court and ultimately asked both parties to bear their own cost.
Summarized by: Karim Samura and Sophie Kelson- Sesay
Edited by: Frederick Ishmael Bockarie