Supreme Court http://sierralii.gov.sl/ en Jaber v Radar (CIVIL CASE 75 of 1950) [1951] SLSC 12 (02 March 1951); http://sierralii.gov.sl/sl/judgment/supreme-court/1951/12 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">Jaber v Radar (CIVIL CASE 75 of 1950) [1951] SLSC 12 (02 March 1951);</span> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Leroy</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Tue, 11/09/2021 - 15:19</span> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-search-summary field--type-text-with-summary field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Search summary</div> <div class="field__item"><p><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="color:black">Civil Procedure — pleading — matters which must be specifically pleaded—condition precedent—due performance presumed if non­performance not pleaded</span></span></b></span></p> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-files field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Download</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf"> <a href="https://media.sierralii.org/files/judgments/slsc/1951/12/1951-slsc-12.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=638139">1951-slsc-12.pdf</a></span> </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field__item"><p>JABER v. RADAR<br /> SUPREME COURT (Beoku-Betts, J.): March 2nd, 1951<br /> (Civil Case No. 75/50)<br /> [11 Civil Procedure — pleading — matters which must be specifically pleaded—condition precedent—due performance presumed if non-performance not pleaded: Where one of the parties to an action intends to contest the performance of a condition precedent, he must, under O.XVI, r.10 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1947, state specifically what that condition is and plead its non-performance; otherwise its due performance will be presumed (page 104, lines 16-20).<br /> [2]    Civil Procedure—pleading—defence—want of notice—defence must be specifically pleaded: Questions of notice or time are matters which are conditions precedent to a right of action and therefore must be pleaded specifically under O.XVI, r.10 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1947 (page 104, lines 3-13).<br /> [3]    Civil Procedure — pleading — matters which must be specifically pleaded—defence of want of notice: See [2] above.<br /> [41 Equity—relief against forfeiture—court has discretion to grant relief —conduct of tenant to be considered—relief not granted where landlord’s title impugned or tenant continues breach of covenant: The court has a discretion in deciding whether relief against forfeiture should be granted in a particular case, and in doing so must consider the conduct of the tenant: relief will be refused if he impugned the landlord’s title in a way which amounts to a disclaimer or renunciation of the relationship between them, or if he continues in breach of covenant (page 104, lines 30-33; page 106, lines 7-27).<br /> [5j Evidence—presumptions—presumption of law—omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta—condition precedent—due performance presumed if non-performance not pleaded: See [1] above.<br /> [61 Land Law—fee simple—incidents—estate confers all rights of ownership and transfer subject to existing interests or tenancies not inconsistent with freehold: A fee simple estate, being the most extensive in quantum and the most absolute in respect to the rights it confers of all estates known to the law, confers the lawful right to exercise over, upon and in respect of the land every act of ownership imaginable, including the right to commit unlimited waste and the</p> <p>S.L.—4<br /> absolute right of alienation inter vivos and of devise by will; but a purchaser’s interest does not override or disregard interests or tenancies created by previous owners which are not inconsistent with the freehold (page 101, line 30—page 102, line 11).<br /> [7]    Landlord and Tenant—determination of tenancies—forfeiture—relief against forfeiture—court has discretion to grant relief—conduct of tenant to be considered—relief not granted where landlord’s title impugned or tenant continues breach of covenant: See [4] above.<br /> [8]    Landlord and Tenant—repair, fitness and alteration—tenant’s liability for alteration—breach of covenant to repair for tenant to open and keep open partition without landlord’s consent: It may be a breach of a covenant to repair for a tenant to open a partition without the landlord’s consent and to keep it open after being requested to close it (page 103, lines 13-22).<br /> [9]    Landlord and Tenant—repair, fitness and alteration—tenant’s liability for repair—covenant to repair performed if tenant keeps premises reasonably and substantially in repair—not sufficient to employ competent persons who do not execute repairs properly: A covenant to repair is performed if the tenant keeps the premises substantially in repair and does all that he reasonably ought to do, and whether he has done so or not is always a question of fact; but it is not sufficient performance for the tenant to employ competent persons who fail to execute the repairs properly (page 103, lines 6-11).<br /> The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant to recover possession of certain premises.<br /> The defendant was the tenant of premises which were sold by the owners to the plaintiff, who had previously been the defendant’s sub-tenant. Under the terms of the defendant’s lease he covenanted that he would “substantially maintain and keep in good condition and repair” the leased premises. The defendant failed to carry out his obligations under the lease and also failed to rectify matters when notice to repair was served on him by the plaintiff. The plaintiff instituted the present proceedings against the defendant to recover possession of the premises occupied by the defendant.<br /> The defendant, who in giving evidence impugned the title of the plaintiff, contended that the plaintiff was not the fee simple owner of the premises, that no breaches of covenant had been committed, that no sufficient notice of repair was given by the plaintiff, and that in any event he was entitled to relief from forfeiture of the lease.<br /> Cases referred to:<br /> (1)    Doe d. Vickery v. Jackson (1817), 2 Stark. 293; 171 E.R. 651. <br /> JABER v. RADAR, 1950-56 ALR S.L. 97 s»c«<br /> (2)    Doe d. Gray v. Stanion (1836), 1 M. &amp; W. 695; 150 E.R. 614.<br /> (3)    Doe d. Pittman v. Sutton (1841), 9 C. &amp; P. 706; 173 E.R. 1019.<br /> (4)    Evelyn v. Raddish (1817), 7 Taunt. 411; 129 E.R. 164.<br /> (5)    Gange v. Lockwood (1860), 2 F. &amp; F. .115; 175 E.R. 984.    5<br /> (6)    Horsey Estate Ltd. v. Steiger, [1899] 2 Q.B. 79; [1895-9] All E.R.<br /> Rep. 515.<br /> Legislation construed:<br /> Supreme Court Rules, 1947 (P.N. No. 251 of 1947), O.XVI, r.10:    JQ<br /> “Any condition precedent, the performance or occurrence of which is intended to be contested, shall be distinctly specified in his pleading by the plaintiff or defendant (as the case may be); and subject thereto, an averment of the performance or occurrence of all the conditions precedent necessary for the case of the plaintiff or the defendant shall be implied in his pleading.”    15<br /> Betts for the plaintiff;<br /> R.B. Marke for the defendant.<br /> BEOKU-BETTS, J.:<br /> This action was expedited for hearing and short-notices of 20 hearing given and received at the consent of the parties. The hearing came up soon after an interlocutory matter was disposed of by me. Although the interlocutory mater did not have anything to do with the issue involved in the action, I considered that some other judge should try the case. Counsel for the parties suggested I should try 25 the case and expressly stated that they would have no objection to my doing so. It so happened no other judge was available at the time of trial and until its conclusion, as Mr. Justice Kingsley had gone to the Protectorate to hold sessions of the court, or left during the progress of the case, and Mr. Justice Wright was a witness in 30 the case and was called to give evidence.<br /> The main issues as alleged in the statement of claim are as follows:<br /> 1.    That, by a lease dated September 25th, 1936, one Marian Taylor leased premises at No. 6 Garrison Street and No. 44a Little 35 East Street to the defendant. By the lease the defendant agreed “substantially to maintain and keep in good condition and repair”<br /> the premises in the lease.<br /> 2.    That by the lease it was agreed that on a breach of the covenants the lessor should have the right to re-enter the premises 40 and determine the lease after one month’s notice. </p> <p>3.    That the plaintiff on July 22nd, 1948 purchased the premises from Marian Taylor and thereby became the owner.<br /> 4.    That, the defendant having broken the condition of the lease, a notice was served on the defendant to do certain repairs within a month. The defendant failed to do this and thereby forfeited the lease.<br /> The defendant admitted the making of the lease but denied that the terms of the covenant to repair were correctly stated in the statement of claim, although he did not state in what way they were incorrect. The defendant also denied that he had committed any breach of the covenants to repair, and stated that he substantially maintained the premises and kept them in repair in accordance with the covenant. The defendant then counterclaimed that if, contrary to what he contends, it should be found that he committed any breach of the covenants of the lease to repair, he should be relieved from forfeiture under s.14 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, as the court may think fit.<br /> Counsel for the plaintiff further claims that the defendant has disavowed the rights of the plaintiff landlord and on that ground alone the plaintiff should succeed.<br /> The matters which I consider necessary for consideration may conveniently be stated as follows:<br /> 1.    Whether the defendant has committed a breach of the covenants of the tenancy.<br /> 2.    Whether notice has been given as required by the lease.<br /> 3.    Whether, if so, the defendant failed to do the repairs and thereby forfeited the lease.<br /> 4.    Whether, if the defendant failed to do the repairs, the court should grant relief from forfeiture.<br /> 5.    Whether, as alleged by the plaintiff, the defendant has done anything which may be said to be disavowing or disputing the title of the landlord and, if so, what is the effect in law.<br /> On the first question, whether the defendant has committed a breach of the covenants of the lease, it is necessary to consider the allegations and to come to a decision on the facts. By a lease dated September 25th, 1936, made between Marian Taylor of the one part and Abdul Radar of the other part, the defendant covenanted by para. 61 that he—“will at the like expense (his own expense) during the said term well and substantially maintain and keep in good condition and repair the said dwelling-house and shop¬ <br /> basement and all other buildings which shall be built upon the said parcel of land ...”<br /> By Exhibit B dated September 6th, 1946, the plaintiff took a sub-lease of a portion of the premises from the defendant, namely, part of the shop comprising four doors in Little East Street and one door in Garrison Street, being a portion formerly let out to Kassim Basma with one bedroom on the first floor, for a term of four years. By Exhibit F dated October 7th, 1948, the plaintiff bought the freehold of the whole of the premises from Marian Taylor and two other persons. By this act, in my opinion, the plaintiff became the freehold owner of the whole of the premises, subject to the lease granted by Marian Taylor to the defendant, and the defendant was the lessee of the portion of the premises over which he held a lease from Marian Taylor.<br /> It is this right which the plaintiff acquired in the freehold that the plaintiff seeks to enforce in the action by claiming the forfeiture for breach of covenant. This action is apparently complicated by the fact that after Marian Taylor granted a lease of what was then described as the whole of the premises by Exhibit A, the plaintiff took out a lease of part of the premises (part of which was so granted) from the defendant by Exhibit B. It has therefore been said, and with some vehemence, that while the defendant is a lessee of the plaintiff, by virtue of Exhibit F the plaintiff is also a lessee of the defendant of a portion of the premises. But a proper consideration of the matter will show what is the real and proper legal position of the parties and reduce the position to one of simplicity. When the plaintiff acquired by purchase the freehold of the property, he received what in law is the highest interest possible in the land. As stated in Cheshire s Modern Real Property, 5th ed., at 115 (1944):<br /> “Extent of ownership. A fee simple estate is and always has been the largest estate known to the law, and it is now more than ever clear that it is practically equivalent to the absolute ownership which obtains in the case of personal goods.” In Cheshire, at 116, the remarks of Challis’s Real Property, 1st ed., at 218 (1911), are referred to as follows:<br /> “A jee simple is the most extensive in quantum, and the most absolute in respect to the rights which it confers, of all estates known to the law.<br /> It confers, and since the beginning of legal history it always has conferred, the lawful right to exercise over, upon, and in respect of the land, every act of ownership which can enter <br /> into the imagination, including the right to commit unlimited waste. . . . Besides these rights of ownership, a fee simple at the present day confers an absolute right, both of alienation inter vivos and of devise by will.”</p> <p>Although the plaintiff by the purchase acquired the highest interest in the land, that did not override or disregard interests or tenancies not inconsistent with the freehold. Just as a freehold owner may himself grant a lease which recognises the right of the lessee to exercise rights over the land not inconsistent with the right of the owner, so rights created by previous owners continue with the same condition.<br /> The defendant has the right to enforce the lease held from Marian Taylor to the extent that she had properly created it. The new owner is bound by such lease subject to the right of enforcing his rights on any breach. When Exhibit B was made, neither party was the freehold owner of the property. Subsequently the plaintiff bought the freehold. In my opinion he would not be bound by any diminution of his freehold. The defendant has not denied his liability to do repairs on the premises nor his liability if he failed to do so. He however pleads that there were no breaches of covenant and, if there were any, that he has done all the repairs complained of. By Exhibit C, the plaintiff specified several breaches complained of and evidence was given by two witnesses (O’Conor and Henry Brookfost Taylor, chief building inspector) as to the condition of repair. The defendant himself and the second defence witness (Bangura) gave evidence as to what was done to put the premises in a good, substantial and proper state of repair.<br /> [The learned judge reviewed the evidence of the parties and their witnesses, inspected the locus in quo, and then continued: ]<br /> I have reviewed at length the evidence on this question as to whether the defendant has failed to carry out his obligations under the lease. It should be recollected that the premises were built by the defendant, and according to Exhibit A, para. 2(b) he was to build a good and substantial dwelling-house and shop-basement with proper and sufficient out-buildings and conveniences. Then under the same exhibit (para. 2(b)) he was to “well and substantially maintain and keep in good condition and repair the said dwelling¬house and shop-basement and all other buildings which shall be built upon the said parcel of land.” The defendant cannot be liable in this action for any defect in the building, but only for failure to <br /> “substantially maintain and keep in good condition and repair” the premises, and my decision is confined to this aspect of the case.<br /> What I have to consider is whether the defendant has fulfilled his obligations under the lease. I have to bear in mind the principles in Williams &amp; Yates, Law of Ejectment, 2nd ed., at 92 (1911):    5<br /> “The covenant to repair is performed if the tenant keeps the premises substantially in repair, and does all that he reasonably ought to do in performance of the covenant; it is always a question of fact whether he has done so .... It is not sufficient for the tenant to have employed competent persons to do the 10 repairs if they have not in fact executed them properly.”<br /> See Evelyn v. Raddish (4) and Doe d. Pittman v. Sutton (3).<br /> A question arose as to whether a partition was opened with the consent of the original landlord. She denied that she gave any such consent. O’Conor, a witness for the plaintiff and the person 15 who built the house, said that the original owner did give such consent. Since the defendant continued to keep the partition open after he had been requested to close it by Exhibit C on November 23rd, 1949, the cases of Doe d. Vickery v. Jackson (1) and Gange v. Lockwood (5) are authorities that the opening of a doorway and 20 keeping it open may in principle be a breach, and in this case is a breach, of the covenant. I was impressed by the evidence of Marian Taylor that she never gave consent to the opening of the partition. O’Conor is a witness for the plaintiff, but I cannot say he impressed me to the same extent. Using my own judgment on 25 the evidence, I am satisfied Marian Taylor never approved of the opening of the partition. The defendant found the money and instructed his builder (O’Conor) to open the partition. Even if she did, when the plaintiff gave notice that it was a breach of the covenant of the lease to continue to leave it open, the defendant 30 should have acted on it. His continuing to keep it open is a legitimate ground of complaint.<br /> This apart, the question I have to decide is whether, taking the whole of the evidence in this case, I can come to the conclusion that the defendant has well and substantially maintained and kept 35 in good condition and repair the premises according to the lease. I have reviewed, as I stated, the whole evidence, and I have come to the conclusion that the defendant has failed to carry out his obligations under the lease and I find he has not substantially kept the premises in repair as required by the covenant.    40<br /> It was then stated during the address that the notice to repair was<br /> not in accordance with the agreement in that notice required by Exhibit A was for three calendar months and the defendant was given one month. This question was not raised in the pleadings. The defendant could have raised the point by his pleadings, and r.5 not having raised it he is taken to have waived it. The case pro¬ceeded to trial as if this point had not arisen. The defendant pleaded that he had done the work and then pleaded relief from forfeiture. In fact he went further and pleaded that there was no breach of the covenant and stated that he had well and substantially 10 maintained and kept the premises in accordance with the covenant.<br /> Questions of notice or time are matters which are conditions prece¬dent to the right of action, and therefore they should have been pleaded specifically: see Horsey Estate Ltd. v. Steiger (6), Hill &lt;&amp; Redmans Law of Landlord and Tenant, 10th ed., at 426, para. 357 15    (1946), the Supreme Court Rules, 1947, O.XVI, r.10, and the English<br /> Rules of the Supreme Court, O.XIX, r.14. The cases quoted state that it is for the defendant, if he contends that there was a condition precedent and that it has not been duly performed, to state specifi¬cally what that condition is and to plead its non-performance;<br /> 20 otherwise its due performance will be presumed.<br /> In the circumstances of this case, the defendant, if ever there was a condition precedent, has waived it. If this question had been pleaded, the court would have had to consider whether the notice given was reasonable: see Horsey Estate Ltd. v. Steiger (6). The 25 notice in this case was given on February 22nd, 1949 and the writ issued on February 22nd, 1950. That surely was reasonable notice. The defendant must have regarded it as such for he did the work within 15 or 16 days. The matter I have dealt with only out of abundant caution as it does not arise in the pleadings.<br /> 30    The next question is whether this is a case in which relief<br /> against forfeiture should be granted by the court. This is a dis¬cretion which must be exercised judicially. In doing so, the conduct of the defendant must be considered. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that relief should not be granted, for by his action the 35 defendant would ordinarily forfeit any right he had under the lease;<br /> the defendant has impugned the title of the plaintiff. When the plaintiff was re-called to give evidence, counsel for the defendant asked this question: “What are your title deeds doing with the bank? Are the premises mortgaged to the bank?” I disallowed 40 this question since the defendant as tenant is bound to accept the title of the plaintiff. At the close of the case for the plaintiff counsel <br /> for the defendant submitted there was no case to answer, and in argument said that Exhibit A is a lease between Marian Taylor and the defendant, and that Exhibit F was a conveyance between Marian Taylor and two other persons and the plaintiff. He then said that when the plaintiff bought the property he took over the rights of    5<br /> Marian Taylor, and therefore all the plaintiff could enforce is one part share of the interest in the property. He stated that when the plaintiff claims re-entry into the whole property, he must fail as his rights are limited to those of Marian Taylor.<br /> With all respect to counsel for the defendant, I must state that 10 the contrary is the case. The position is that the defendant took a lease of the property from Marian Taylor. Later the defendant bought the property with two others. In fact he acquired not only the interest of Marian Taylor but the interests of two other persons.<br /> If any person failed to have the full interest in the property, it is    15<br /> not the plaintiff but the defendant. The defendant took a lease from Marian Taylor. From Exhibit F Marian Taylor had only one- third share of the property and that the defendant took; but when the plaintiff acquired the property he acquired not only the one-third share of Marian Taylor but the whole of the property. So that it 20 is the defendant who, having the lease under or from Marian Taylor, has only a one-third share of the property, while the other two-thirds remained in the other persons who sold to the plaintiff at the time Marian Taylor sold her one-third share.<br /> At the close of the case for the defendant, counsel again referred 25 to this question and stated that the lease was between Marian Taylor and the defendant; that by Exhibit F Marian Taylor appeared to have had only one-third share while the other two-thirds shares were in some other persons. When I reminded counsel of the risk he was running, he stated that he was not questioning the title of    30<br /> anyone, but in effect that was what he was doing. Title under the lease was from Marian Taylor, and whether Marian Taylor had the whole interest or only a portion the defendant could not dispute the title and could not properly contend that Marian Taylor had no title she could convey to the plaintiff. But it so happens that the 35 plaintiff’s title was based not only on the deed of Marian Taylor but also on the sale of the other two-thirds interests by the two other persons. The defendant’s counsel, with all respect to him, completely misconceived the position. It was his client who had only a one-third interest in the property as he derived title only from 40 Marian Taylor, but not from the two other co-owners of the property. <br /> In this matter where the defendant, who had only an interest as a lessee in a one-third share of the property, is asserting that since the plaintiff who had not only the one-third share of the original owner, but also the two-thirds shares of the two co-owners, was attempting to question the right of the plaintiff, he must be regarded as doing an act which this court must view with disfavour. If the defendant relies on the discretion of the court, his conduct must be such as entitles him to favourable consideration. The action of the defendant does not in my opinion place him in this category. After considering not only the attitude of the defendant by the act of his solicitor, but also from the nature of the breach proved and the failure to repair them I am of the opinion that this is not a case where the defendant should be relieved from forfeiture. Up to the time the court inspected the premises, from the evidence given, the property showed grave breaches of covenant. Forfeiture cannot be relieved against when the complaint continues as in this case.<br /> Counsel for the plaintiff further stated that even if there had been no breach of covenant, the defendant having impugned the title of the plaintiff the plaintiff was on that ground entitled to forfeiture. I am of the opinion, as I have already stated sufficiently, that the defendant has committed a breach of the covenant and that the case is not of a nature that he should be relieved against the effect of forfeiture. But I propose to consider whether the allegations about impugning the title of the plaintiff are further grounds for forfeiture. To be sufficient to affect a lease the defendant must have committed an act which amounts to a disclaimer or renunciation of the relation of landlord and tenant: see Redmans Law of Land¬lord &amp; Tenant, 6th ed., at 523 (1912). The contention of the defendant through his solicitor is that the plaintiff could not maintain this action as Marian Taylor only had a one-third share of the property, and that the plaintiff also could have only a one-third share of the property. As I pointed out before, if Marian Taylor had only a one-third share and conveyed that one-third to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff in addition bought the two-thirds share from some other persons, the plaintiff then had the whole share himself, and for his tenant to maintain that he had not the whole of the fee simple interest and to set up that portion of the interest in property in some other person is in my opinion setting up title in some other person. This is contrary to law: see Redman, at 524, and Doe d. Gray v. Stanion (2).<br /> To sum up, therefore, I find that the defendant committed serious <br /> breaches of the covenant of the lease, that he did some of the repairs complained of but left others which seriously support the claim of the plaintiff. From the nature of the breach and the continued want of repair I do not consider this is a proper case where the defendant should be relieved from forfeiture.    5<br /> As I stated, this should be sufficient ground for the plaintiff to succeed, but I find further an additional ground that the defendant has impugned the title of the plaintiff. I therefore order that the plaintiff should recover possession of the premises. On the claim for mesne profits, the plaintiff is entitled to the rent due from the 10 date the action was instituted on this claim, that is, February 22nd, 1950, at £4 a month to the date possession was recovered. The defendant is to pay the costs.<br /> Judgment for the plaintiff.<br />  </p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-law-report-citations field--type-string field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Law report citations</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item">1950-1956 ALR SL 97</div> </div> </div> <div class="views-element-container"><div class="view view-eva view-download-conditional view-id-download_conditional view-display-id-entity_view_1 js-view-dom-id-25beed73c3cd188efccb15bf657d76c0c9a9a0ca41494e237399190361d14bb0"> <div><div class="views-field views-field-views-conditional-field"><span class="field-content"><p>JABER v. RADAR<br /> SUPREME COURT (Beoku-Betts, J.): March 2nd, 1951<br /> (Civil Case No. 75/50)<br /> [11 Civil Procedure — pleading — matters which must be specifically pleaded—condition precedent—due performance presumed if non-performance not pleaded: Where one of the parties to an action intends to contest the performance of a condition precedent, he must, under O.XVI, r.10 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1947, state specifically what that condition is and plead its non-performance; otherwise its due performance will be presumed (page 104, lines 16-20).<br /> [2]    Civil Procedure—pleading—defence—want of notice—defence must be specifically pleaded: Questions of notice or time are matters which are conditions precedent to a right of action and therefore must be pleaded specifically under O.XVI, r.10 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1947 (page 104, lines 3-13).<br /> [3]    Civil Procedure — pleading — matters which must be specifically pleaded—defence of want of notice: See [2] above.<br /> [41 Equity—relief against forfeiture—court has discretion to grant relief —conduct of tenant to be considered—relief not granted where landlord’s title impugned or tenant continues breach of covenant: The court has a discretion in deciding whether relief against forfeiture should be granted in a particular case, and in doing so must consider the conduct of the tenant: relief will be refused if he impugned the landlord’s title in a way which amounts to a disclaimer or renunciation of the relationship between them, or if he continues in breach of covenant (page 104, lines 30-33; page 106, lines 7-27).<br /> [5j Evidence—presumptions—presumption of law—omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta—condition precedent—due performance presumed if non-performance not pleaded: See [1] above.<br /> [61 Land Law—fee simple—incidents—estate confers all rights of ownership and transfer subject to existing interests or tenancies not inconsistent with freehold: A fee simple estate, being the most extensive in quantum and the most absolute in respect to the rights it confers of all estates known to the law, confers the lawful right to exercise over, upon and in respect of the land every act of ownership imaginable, including the right to commit unlimited waste and the</p> <p>S.L.—4<br /> absolute right of alienation inter vivos and of devise by will; but a purchaser’s interest does not override or disregard interests or tenancies created by previous owners which are not inconsistent with the freehold (page 101, line 30—page 102, line 11).<br /> [7]    Landlord and Tenant—determination of tenancies—forfeiture—relief against forfeiture—court has discretion to grant relief—conduct of tenant to be considered—relief not granted where landlord’s title impugned or tenant continues breach of covenant: See [4] above.<br /> [8]    Landlord and Tenant—repair, fitness and alteration—tenant’s liability for alteration—breach of covenant to repair for tenant to open and keep open partition without landlord’s consent: It may be a breach of a covenant to repair for a tenant to open a partition without the landlord’s consent and to keep it open after being requested to close it (page 103, lines 13-22).<br /> [9]    Landlord and Tenant—repair, fitness and alteration—tenant’s liability for repair—covenant to repair performed if tenant keeps premises reasonably and substantially in repair—not sufficient to employ competent persons who do not execute repairs properly: A covenant to repair is performed if the tenant keeps the premises substantially in repair and does all that he reasonably ought to do, and whether he has done so or not is always a question of fact; but it is not sufficient performance for the tenant to employ competent persons who fail to execute the repairs properly (page 103, lines 6-11).<br /> The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant to recover possession of certain premises.<br /> The defendant was the tenant of premises which were sold by the owners to the plaintiff, who had previously been the defendant’s sub-tenant. Under the terms of the defendant’s lease he covenanted that he would “substantially maintain and keep in good condition and repair” the leased premises. The defendant failed to carry out his obligations under the lease and also failed to rectify matters when notice to repair was served on him by the plaintiff. The plaintiff instituted the present proceedings against the defendant to recover possession of the premises occupied by the defendant.<br /> The defendant, who in giving evidence impugned the title of the plaintiff, contended that the plaintiff was not the fee simple owner of the premises, that no breaches of covenant had been committed, that no sufficient notice of repair was given by the plaintiff, and that in any event he was entitled to relief from forfeiture of the lease.<br /> Cases referred to:<br /> (1)    Doe d. Vickery v. Jackson (1817), 2 Stark. 293; 171 E.R. 651. <br /> JABER v. RADAR, 1950-56 ALR S.L. 97 s»c«<br /> (2)    Doe d. Gray v. Stanion (1836), 1 M. &amp; W. 695; 150 E.R. 614.<br /> (3)    Doe d. Pittman v. Sutton (1841), 9 C. &amp; P. 706; 173 E.R. 1019.<br /> (4)    Evelyn v. Raddish (1817), 7 Taunt. 411; 129 E.R. 164.<br /> (5)    Gange v. Lockwood (1860), 2 F. &amp; F. .115; 175 E.R. 984.    5<br /> (6)    Horsey Estate Ltd. v. Steiger, [1899] 2 Q.B. 79; [1895-9] All E.R.<br /> Rep. 515.<br /> Legislation construed:<br /> Supreme Court Rules, 1947 (P.N. No. 251 of 1947), O.XVI, r.10:    JQ<br /> “Any condition precedent, the performance or occurrence of which is intended to be contested, shall be distinctly specified in his pleading by the plaintiff or defendant (as the case may be); and subject thereto, an averment of the performance or occurrence of all the conditions precedent necessary for the case of the plaintiff or the defendant shall be implied in his pleading.”    15<br /> Betts for the plaintiff;<br /> R.B. Marke for the defendant.<br /> BEOKU-BETTS, J.:<br /> This action was expedited for hearing and short-notices of 20 hearing given and received at the consent of the parties. The hearing came up soon after an interlocutory matter was disposed of by me. Although the interlocutory mater did not have anything to do with the issue involved in the action, I considered that some other judge should try the case. Counsel for the parties suggested I should try 25 the case and expressly stated that they would have no objection to my doing so. It so happened no other judge was available at the time of trial and until its conclusion, as Mr. Justice Kingsley had gone to the Protectorate to hold sessions of the court, or left during the progress of the case, and Mr. Justice Wright was a witness in 30 the case and was called to give evidence.<br /> The main issues as alleged in the statement of claim are as follows:<br /> 1.    That, by a lease dated September 25th, 1936, one Marian Taylor leased premises at No. 6 Garrison Street and No. 44a Little 35 East Street to the defendant. By the lease the defendant agreed “substantially to maintain and keep in good condition and repair”<br /> the premises in the lease.<br /> 2.    That by the lease it was agreed that on a breach of the covenants the lessor should have the right to re-enter the premises 40 and determine the lease after one month’s notice. </p> <p>3.    That the plaintiff on July 22nd, 1948 purchased the premises from Marian Taylor and thereby became the owner.<br /> 4.    That, the defendant having broken the condition of the lease, a notice was served on the defendant to do certain repairs within a month. The defendant failed to do this and thereby forfeited the lease.<br /> The defendant admitted the making of the lease but denied that the terms of the covenant to repair were correctly stated in the statement of claim, although he did not state in what way they were incorrect. The defendant also denied that he had committed any breach of the covenants to repair, and stated that he substantially maintained the premises and kept them in repair in accordance with the covenant. The defendant then counterclaimed that if, contrary to what he contends, it should be found that he committed any breach of the covenants of the lease to repair, he should be relieved from forfeiture under s.14 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, as the court may think fit.<br /> Counsel for the plaintiff further claims that the defendant has disavowed the rights of the plaintiff landlord and on that ground alone the plaintiff should succeed.<br /> The matters which I consider necessary for consideration may conveniently be stated as follows:<br /> 1.    Whether the defendant has committed a breach of the covenants of the tenancy.<br /> 2.    Whether notice has been given as required by the lease.<br /> 3.    Whether, if so, the defendant failed to do the repairs and thereby forfeited the lease.<br /> 4.    Whether, if the defendant failed to do the repairs, the court should grant relief from forfeiture.<br /> 5.    Whether, as alleged by the plaintiff, the defendant has done anything which may be said to be disavowing or disputing the title of the landlord and, if so, what is the effect in law.<br /> On the first question, whether the defendant has committed a breach of the covenants of the lease, it is necessary to consider the allegations and to come to a decision on the facts. By a lease dated September 25th, 1936, made between Marian Taylor of the one part and Abdul Radar of the other part, the defendant covenanted by para. 61 that he—“will at the like expense (his own expense) during the said term well and substantially maintain and keep in good condition and repair the said dwelling-house and shop¬ <br /> basement and all other buildings which shall be built upon the said parcel of land ...”<br /> By Exhibit B dated September 6th, 1946, the plaintiff took a sub-lease of a portion of the premises from the defendant, namely, part of the shop comprising four doors in Little East Street and one door in Garrison Street, being a portion formerly let out to Kassim Basma with one bedroom on the first floor, for a term of four years. By Exhibit F dated October 7th, 1948, the plaintiff bought the freehold of the whole of the premises from Marian Taylor and two other persons. By this act, in my opinion, the plaintiff became the freehold owner of the whole of the premises, subject to the lease granted by Marian Taylor to the defendant, and the defendant was the lessee of the portion of the premises over which he held a lease from Marian Taylor.<br /> It is this right which the plaintiff acquired in the freehold that the plaintiff seeks to enforce in the action by claiming the forfeiture for breach of covenant. This action is apparently complicated by the fact that after Marian Taylor granted a lease of what was then described as the whole of the premises by Exhibit A, the plaintiff took out a lease of part of the premises (part of which was so granted) from the defendant by Exhibit B. It has therefore been said, and with some vehemence, that while the defendant is a lessee of the plaintiff, by virtue of Exhibit F the plaintiff is also a lessee of the defendant of a portion of the premises. But a proper consideration of the matter will show what is the real and proper legal position of the parties and reduce the position to one of simplicity. When the plaintiff acquired by purchase the freehold of the property, he received what in law is the highest interest possible in the land. As stated in Cheshire s Modern Real Property, 5th ed., at 115 (1944):<br /> “Extent of ownership. A fee simple estate is and always has been the largest estate known to the law, and it is now more than ever clear that it is practically equivalent to the absolute ownership which obtains in the case of personal goods.” In Cheshire, at 116, the remarks of Challis’s Real Property, 1st ed., at 218 (1911), are referred to as follows:<br /> “A jee simple is the most extensive in quantum, and the most absolute in respect to the rights which it confers, of all estates known to the law.<br /> It confers, and since the beginning of legal history it always has conferred, the lawful right to exercise over, upon, and in respect of the land, every act of ownership which can enter <br /> into the imagination, including the right to commit unlimited waste. . . . Besides these rights of ownership, a fee simple at the present day confers an absolute right, both of alienation inter vivos and of devise by will.”</p> <p>Although the plaintiff by the purchase acquired the highest interest in the land, that did not override or disregard interests or tenancies not inconsistent with the freehold. Just as a freehold owner may himself grant a lease which recognises the right of the lessee to exercise rights over the land not inconsistent with the right of the owner, so rights created by previous owners continue with the same condition.<br /> The defendant has the right to enforce the lease held from Marian Taylor to the extent that she had properly created it. The new owner is bound by such lease subject to the right of enforcing his rights on any breach. When Exhibit B was made, neither party was the freehold owner of the property. Subsequently the plaintiff bought the freehold. In my opinion he would not be bound by any diminution of his freehold. The defendant has not denied his liability to do repairs on the premises nor his liability if he failed to do so. He however pleads that there were no breaches of covenant and, if there were any, that he has done all the repairs complained of. By Exhibit C, the plaintiff specified several breaches complained of and evidence was given by two witnesses (O’Conor and Henry Brookfost Taylor, chief building inspector) as to the condition of repair. The defendant himself and the second defence witness (Bangura) gave evidence as to what was done to put the premises in a good, substantial and proper state of repair.<br /> [The learned judge reviewed the evidence of the parties and their witnesses, inspected the locus in quo, and then continued: ]<br /> I have reviewed at length the evidence on this question as to whether the defendant has failed to carry out his obligations under the lease. It should be recollected that the premises were built by the defendant, and according to Exhibit A, para. 2(b) he was to build a good and substantial dwelling-house and shop-basement with proper and sufficient out-buildings and conveniences. Then under the same exhibit (para. 2(b)) he was to “well and substantially maintain and keep in good condition and repair the said dwelling¬house and shop-basement and all other buildings which shall be built upon the said parcel of land.” The defendant cannot be liable in this action for any defect in the building, but only for failure to <br /> “substantially maintain and keep in good condition and repair” the premises, and my decision is confined to this aspect of the case.<br /> What I have to consider is whether the defendant has fulfilled his obligations under the lease. I have to bear in mind the principles in Williams &amp; Yates, Law of Ejectment, 2nd ed., at 92 (1911):    5<br /> “The covenant to repair is performed if the tenant keeps the premises substantially in repair, and does all that he reasonably ought to do in performance of the covenant; it is always a question of fact whether he has done so .... It is not sufficient for the tenant to have employed competent persons to do the 10 repairs if they have not in fact executed them properly.”<br /> See Evelyn v. Raddish (4) and Doe d. Pittman v. Sutton (3).<br /> A question arose as to whether a partition was opened with the consent of the original landlord. She denied that she gave any such consent. O’Conor, a witness for the plaintiff and the person 15 who built the house, said that the original owner did give such consent. Since the defendant continued to keep the partition open after he had been requested to close it by Exhibit C on November 23rd, 1949, the cases of Doe d. Vickery v. Jackson (1) and Gange v. Lockwood (5) are authorities that the opening of a doorway and 20 keeping it open may in principle be a breach, and in this case is a breach, of the covenant. I was impressed by the evidence of Marian Taylor that she never gave consent to the opening of the partition. O’Conor is a witness for the plaintiff, but I cannot say he impressed me to the same extent. Using my own judgment on 25 the evidence, I am satisfied Marian Taylor never approved of the opening of the partition. The defendant found the money and instructed his builder (O’Conor) to open the partition. Even if she did, when the plaintiff gave notice that it was a breach of the covenant of the lease to continue to leave it open, the defendant 30 should have acted on it. His continuing to keep it open is a legitimate ground of complaint.<br /> This apart, the question I have to decide is whether, taking the whole of the evidence in this case, I can come to the conclusion that the defendant has well and substantially maintained and kept 35 in good condition and repair the premises according to the lease. I have reviewed, as I stated, the whole evidence, and I have come to the conclusion that the defendant has failed to carry out his obligations under the lease and I find he has not substantially kept the premises in repair as required by the covenant.    40<br /> It was then stated during the address that the notice to repair was<br /> not in accordance with the agreement in that notice required by Exhibit A was for three calendar months and the defendant was given one month. This question was not raised in the pleadings. The defendant could have raised the point by his pleadings, and r.5 not having raised it he is taken to have waived it. The case pro¬ceeded to trial as if this point had not arisen. The defendant pleaded that he had done the work and then pleaded relief from forfeiture. In fact he went further and pleaded that there was no breach of the covenant and stated that he had well and substantially 10 maintained and kept the premises in accordance with the covenant.<br /> Questions of notice or time are matters which are conditions prece¬dent to the right of action, and therefore they should have been pleaded specifically: see Horsey Estate Ltd. v. Steiger (6), Hill &lt;&amp; Redmans Law of Landlord and Tenant, 10th ed., at 426, para. 357 15    (1946), the Supreme Court Rules, 1947, O.XVI, r.10, and the English<br /> Rules of the Supreme Court, O.XIX, r.14. The cases quoted state that it is for the defendant, if he contends that there was a condition precedent and that it has not been duly performed, to state specifi¬cally what that condition is and to plead its non-performance;<br /> 20 otherwise its due performance will be presumed.<br /> In the circumstances of this case, the defendant, if ever there was a condition precedent, has waived it. If this question had been pleaded, the court would have had to consider whether the notice given was reasonable: see Horsey Estate Ltd. v. Steiger (6). The 25 notice in this case was given on February 22nd, 1949 and the writ issued on February 22nd, 1950. That surely was reasonable notice. The defendant must have regarded it as such for he did the work within 15 or 16 days. The matter I have dealt with only out of abundant caution as it does not arise in the pleadings.<br /> 30    The next question is whether this is a case in which relief<br /> against forfeiture should be granted by the court. This is a dis¬cretion which must be exercised judicially. In doing so, the conduct of the defendant must be considered. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that relief should not be granted, for by his action the 35 defendant would ordinarily forfeit any right he had under the lease;<br /> the defendant has impugned the title of the plaintiff. When the plaintiff was re-called to give evidence, counsel for the defendant asked this question: “What are your title deeds doing with the bank? Are the premises mortgaged to the bank?” I disallowed 40 this question since the defendant as tenant is bound to accept the title of the plaintiff. At the close of the case for the plaintiff counsel <br /> for the defendant submitted there was no case to answer, and in argument said that Exhibit A is a lease between Marian Taylor and the defendant, and that Exhibit F was a conveyance between Marian Taylor and two other persons and the plaintiff. He then said that when the plaintiff bought the property he took over the rights of    5<br /> Marian Taylor, and therefore all the plaintiff could enforce is one part share of the interest in the property. He stated that when the plaintiff claims re-entry into the whole property, he must fail as his rights are limited to those of Marian Taylor.<br /> With all respect to counsel for the defendant, I must state that 10 the contrary is the case. The position is that the defendant took a lease of the property from Marian Taylor. Later the defendant bought the property with two others. In fact he acquired not only the interest of Marian Taylor but the interests of two other persons.<br /> If any person failed to have the full interest in the property, it is    15<br /> not the plaintiff but the defendant. The defendant took a lease from Marian Taylor. From Exhibit F Marian Taylor had only one- third share of the property and that the defendant took; but when the plaintiff acquired the property he acquired not only the one-third share of Marian Taylor but the whole of the property. So that it 20 is the defendant who, having the lease under or from Marian Taylor, has only a one-third share of the property, while the other two-thirds remained in the other persons who sold to the plaintiff at the time Marian Taylor sold her one-third share.<br /> At the close of the case for the defendant, counsel again referred 25 to this question and stated that the lease was between Marian Taylor and the defendant; that by Exhibit F Marian Taylor appeared to have had only one-third share while the other two-thirds shares were in some other persons. When I reminded counsel of the risk he was running, he stated that he was not questioning the title of    30<br /> anyone, but in effect that was what he was doing. Title under the lease was from Marian Taylor, and whether Marian Taylor had the whole interest or only a portion the defendant could not dispute the title and could not properly contend that Marian Taylor had no title she could convey to the plaintiff. But it so happens that the 35 plaintiff’s title was based not only on the deed of Marian Taylor but also on the sale of the other two-thirds interests by the two other persons. The defendant’s counsel, with all respect to him, completely misconceived the position. It was his client who had only a one-third interest in the property as he derived title only from 40 Marian Taylor, but not from the two other co-owners of the property. <br /> In this matter where the defendant, who had only an interest as a lessee in a one-third share of the property, is asserting that since the plaintiff who had not only the one-third share of the original owner, but also the two-thirds shares of the two co-owners, was attempting to question the right of the plaintiff, he must be regarded as doing an act which this court must view with disfavour. If the defendant relies on the discretion of the court, his conduct must be such as entitles him to favourable consideration. The action of the defendant does not in my opinion place him in this category. After considering not only the attitude of the defendant by the act of his solicitor, but also from the nature of the breach proved and the failure to repair them I am of the opinion that this is not a case where the defendant should be relieved from forfeiture. Up to the time the court inspected the premises, from the evidence given, the property showed grave breaches of covenant. Forfeiture cannot be relieved against when the complaint continues as in this case.<br /> Counsel for the plaintiff further stated that even if there had been no breach of covenant, the defendant having impugned the title of the plaintiff the plaintiff was on that ground entitled to forfeiture. I am of the opinion, as I have already stated sufficiently, that the defendant has committed a breach of the covenant and that the case is not of a nature that he should be relieved against the effect of forfeiture. But I propose to consider whether the allegations about impugning the title of the plaintiff are further grounds for forfeiture. To be sufficient to affect a lease the defendant must have committed an act which amounts to a disclaimer or renunciation of the relation of landlord and tenant: see Redmans Law of Land¬lord &amp; Tenant, 6th ed., at 523 (1912). The contention of the defendant through his solicitor is that the plaintiff could not maintain this action as Marian Taylor only had a one-third share of the property, and that the plaintiff also could have only a one-third share of the property. As I pointed out before, if Marian Taylor had only a one-third share and conveyed that one-third to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff in addition bought the two-thirds share from some other persons, the plaintiff then had the whole share himself, and for his tenant to maintain that he had not the whole of the fee simple interest and to set up that portion of the interest in property in some other person is in my opinion setting up title in some other person. This is contrary to law: see Redman, at 524, and Doe d. Gray v. Stanion (2).<br /> To sum up, therefore, I find that the defendant committed serious <br /> breaches of the covenant of the lease, that he did some of the repairs complained of but left others which seriously support the claim of the plaintiff. From the nature of the breach and the continued want of repair I do not consider this is a proper case where the defendant should be relieved from forfeiture.    5<br /> As I stated, this should be sufficient ground for the plaintiff to succeed, but I find further an additional ground that the defendant has impugned the title of the plaintiff. I therefore order that the plaintiff should recover possession of the premises. On the claim for mesne profits, the plaintiff is entitled to the rent due from the 10 date the action was instituted on this claim, that is, February 22nd, 1950, at £4 a month to the date possession was recovered. The defendant is to pay the costs.<br /> Judgment for the plaintiff.<br />  </p></span></div></div> </div> </div> Tue, 09 Nov 2021 15:19:09 +0000 Leroy 3299 at http://sierralii.gov.sl Rahman v Elba (CIVIL CASE 112 of 1950) [1951] SLSC 11 (26 February 1951); http://sierralii.gov.sl/sl/judgment/supreme-court/1951/11 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">Rahman v Elba (CIVIL CASE 112 of 1950) [1951] SLSC 11 (26 February 1951);</span> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Leroy</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Tue, 11/09/2021 - 15:09</span> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-search-summary field--type-text-with-summary field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Search summary</div> <div class="field__item"><p><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="color:black">Evidence—burden of proof—title to land—statutory title—proof of adverse possession not necessary to acquire statutory title</span></span></b></span></p> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-files field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Download</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf"> <a href="https://media.sierralii.org/files/judgments/slsc/1951/11/1951-slsc-11.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=551916">1951-slsc-11.pdf</a></span> </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="WordSection1"> <p align="center" class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:21px; text-align:center; text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">RAHMAN </span></b><i><span style="color:black">v.</span></i><b><span style="color:black"> ELBA</span></b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:21px; text-align:center; text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="font-variant:small-caps"><span style="color:black">Supreme Court</span></span><span style="color:black"> (Beoku-Betts, J.): February 26th, 1951<br /> (Civil Case No. 112/50)</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li class="Bodytext20" style="margin-left:3px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:8px"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="tab-stops:32.6pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark0" id="bookmark0"></a><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">Evidence—burden of proof—recovery of possession of land—plaintiff </span></b><span style="color:black">must succeed on strength of own title: In an action for the recovery of possession of land, the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own title and not on the weakness of the defendant’s (page 91, lines 18-22; page 92, lines 11-13).</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="Bodytext20" style="margin-left:3px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:8px"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="tab-stops:32.6pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark1" id="bookmark1"></a><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">Evidence—burden of proof—title to land—statutory title—proof of adverse possession not necessary to acquire statutory title: A </span></b><span style="color:black">statutory title to property can be acquired by any person who is in undisturbed possession of the property for the statutory limitation period without it being necessary to prove adverse possession on his part (page 95, lines 36-40; page 96, lines 11-14).</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="Bodytext20" style="margin-left:3px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:8px"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:32.6pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark2" id="bookmark2"></a><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">Family Law—property—married women’s property—after 1933 mar­ried woman can acquire statutory title even against husband—must not be living together or facts to prevent limitation period from running: </span></b><span style="color:black">Although a person cannot acquire a statutory title to property if he and the owner live together in the property, time can run against the owner if he leaves and the other person con­tinues in possession; and therefore after 1933 a married woman who is in possession of property for over 12 years acquires a statutory title to the property even as against her husband, provided that they were not living together in the property during that time and there are not facts to prevent the limitation period from running (page 95, lines 26-31; page 96, lines 4-14).</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:19px; margin-left:3px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:94%"><span style="tab-stops:32.6pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark3" id="bookmark3"></a><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">Land Law—adverse possession—need not be proved to acquire statutory title: </span></b><span style="color:black">See [2] above.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:4px; margin-left:3px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:30.95pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark4" id="bookmark4"></a><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">Land Law—capacity to hold and transfer land—married women— after 1933 married woman can acquire statutory title even against husband—must not be living together or facts to prevent limitation period from running: See [3] above.</span></b></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="Bodytext20" style="text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:30.95pt 420.75pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark5" id="bookmark5"></a><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">Land Law—recovery of possession—evidence—burden of proof—          -</span></b></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:4px; text-indent:32.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:90%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">plaintiff must succeed on strength of own title: See [1] above.</span></b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="7"><li class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:4px; margin-left:3px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="tab-stops:30.95pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark6" id="bookmark6"></a><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">Land Law—title—statutory title—cannot be acquired by person who lives with owner in property—time runs against owner if leaves property and other person continues in possession: See [3] above.</span></b></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="Bodytext20"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:31.2pt 420.75pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark7" id="bookmark7"></a><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">Land Law—title—statutory title—evidence—burden of proof—proof          </span></b></span><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="font-family:&quot;Georgia&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">10</span></span></b></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:4px; text-indent:32.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">of adverse possession not necessary: See [2] above.</span></b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="9"><li class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:4px; margin-left:3px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:95%"><span style="tab-stops:31.2pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark8" id="bookmark8"></a><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">Limitation of Actions—land—adverse possession—defendant need not prove adverse possession to acquire statutory title: See [2] above.</span></b></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:15px; margin-left:3px"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="tab-stops:30.55pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark9" id="bookmark9"></a><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">Limitation of Actions—land—recovery of possession—statutory title jg cannot be acquired by person who lives with owner in property— time runs against owner if leaves property and other person con­tinues in possession: See [3] above.</span></b></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:25.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant for a declaration of title to certain property, possession of the property, £0 damages, and further or other relief.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:25.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">The defendant and her husband lived together in the defendant’s property after their marriage. The defendant conveyed the property to her husband, but when he subsequently left her she continued to live in the property and exercised the rights of an owner, renting 25 one portion and collecting the rents from it. She stayed in the remaining portion herself for upwards of 13 years. Her husband then purported to sell the property to the plaintiff while the defen­dant was still in possession. The plaintiff instituted the present action against the defendant for a declaration of title to the property, 30 possession, damages, and further or other relief.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:25.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">The plaintiff contended that the defendant lived in the property of her husband, and that adverse possession could not operate as between a husband and wife living together in the same property.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:19px; text-align:justify; text-indent:25.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">The defendant contended that the Statute of Limitations 35 operated in her favour and that, by being in undisturbed possession of the property for over 12 years, the plaintiff’s right and title had been extinguished.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:4px; text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:110%"><span style="tab-stops:420.75pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">Cases referred to:                                                                                                             40</span></b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:4px; text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:110%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">(1) </span></b><i><span style="color:black">Bankole Bright</span></i><b><span style="color:black"> v. </span></b><i><span style="color:black">Bankole Bright</span></i><b><span style="color:black"> (1943), 9 W.A.C.A. 48.</span></b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="2"><li class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:7px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:110%"><span style="tab-stops:59.7pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark10" id="bookmark10"></a><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i><span style="color:black">Bankole Bright</span></i><span style="color:black"> v. <i>U.A.C. Ltd.</i> (1944), 3 S.L. Law Rec. 23.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:7px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:110%"><span style="tab-stops:59.7pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark11" id="bookmark11"></a><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i><span style="color:black">In re Hastings, Hallett</span></i><span style="color:black"> v. <i>Hastings</i> (1887), 35 Ch.D. 94; 57 L.T. 126.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:7px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:110%"><span style="tab-stops:59.95pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark12" id="bookmark12"></a><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i><span style="color:black">Lowe</span></i><span style="color:black"> v. <i>Fox</i> (1885), 15 Q.B.D. 667; 53 L.T. 886.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:7px; text-align:justify; text-indent:8.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:110%"><span style="tab-stops:39.65pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark13" id="bookmark13"><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">5</span></span></a><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">         (5) <i>Lynes</i> v. <i>Snaith</i> (1899), 1 Q.B.D. 486; 80 L.T. 122.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="6"><li class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:7px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:110%"><span style="tab-stops:59.95pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark14" id="bookmark14"></a><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i><span style="color:black">Nepean</span></i><span style="color:black"> v. <i>Doe d. Knight</i> (1837), 2 M. &amp; W. 894; 150 E.R. 1021.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:7px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:110%"><span style="tab-stops:59.95pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark15" id="bookmark15"></a><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i><span style="color:black">N’jie</span></i><span style="color:black"> v. <i>Hall</i> (1931), 1 W.A.C.A. 100.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:7px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:110%"><span style="tab-stops:59.95pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark16" id="bookmark16"></a><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i><span style="color:black">Pratt</span></i><span style="color:black"> v. <i>Noah</i> (1944), 3 S.L. Law Rec. 60.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><sup><span style="color:black">10</span></sup></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:7px; margin-left:49px; text-align:justify; text-indent:3.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:75%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">Legislation construed:</span></b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="Bodytext20" style="margin-left:49px; text-align:justify; text-indent:3.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:95%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">Imperial Statutes (Law of Property) Adoption Ordinance (Laws of Sierra Leone, 1946, <i>cap.</i> 108), s.4:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:79px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:87%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">The relevant terms of this section are set out at page 95, lines 21-25.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="Bodytext20" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:37.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i><span style="color:black">Margai</span></i><span style="color:black"> for the plaintiff;</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; text-indent:37.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i><span style="color:black">O.I.E. During</span></i><span style="color:black"> for the defendant.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:85px; text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">BEOKU-BETTS, J.:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:64.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">The plaintiff claims, as the owner in fee simple, the house and 20 land situate at No. 5 Bent Street in Freetown. From the statement of claim, the title of the plaintiff is derived from a purchase of the property from one Thomas Hamilton Elba who was stated to be the owner.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:64.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">The plaintiff states that the defendant is occupying the property 25 and refuses to give up possession of the same notwithstanding repeated demands by the plaintiff for the delivery of possession. The plaintiff therefore claims:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:59.95pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><a name="bookmark17" id="bookmark17"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">Declaration of his title to the property.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:61.15pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><a name="bookmark18" id="bookmark18"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">Possession of the property.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:39.65pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">30         (c) Damages for depriving the plaintiff of possession at the rate</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:85px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">of £9 per month from January 24th, 1950 up to delivery of possession.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:37.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">(d) Such further or other relief as the court may think fit.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:7px; text-align:justify; text-indent:64.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">The defendant in her defence stated that she is the owner of 35 the premises and that she has been in undisturbed possession of the same for over 13 years. The defendant further stated that Thomas Hamilton Elba is her husband and that, by a representation made to her by her said husband for the protection of her property, she conveyed the property to her husband on May 10th, 1932, but that 40 she continued in undisturbed possession and has up to the present been exercising all her rights of ownership of the said property.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">She pleaded that the title of the plaintiff is barred by the Statute of Limitations and that his right and title, if any, to the said property were extinguished by virtue of the Act referred to.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:26.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">The plaintiff was granted leave to deliver a reply and he stated that the Statute of Limitations did not apply for the following 5 reasons:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:19px; text-align:justify; text-indent:20pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">“(a) Although the defendant was staying at the said premises she did so with the permission, approval or consent of her husband.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="2" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:60.85pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><a name="bookmark19" id="bookmark19"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">The defendant occupied the premises as lawful wife of 10 the previous owner of the property who was supporting her</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:19px; text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">and against whom her possession could not in the circumstances be adverse.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="3" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li class="MsoBodyText"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:61.15pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><a name="bookmark20" id="bookmark20"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">The defendant up to June 1947 was occupying only part</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:14.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:419.7pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">of the said premises whilst her husband through whom the                                                                                                             15</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:19px; text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">plaintiff claims was occupying the remaining portion by his tenant from whom he received rents.”</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:26.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">As the plaintiff claims possession and, even from the pleadings, the plaintiff admits that the defendant is in possession and has refused to give up possession, the ordinary law applies that the 20 plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his title and not on the weakness of the defendant’s. To establish his title the plaintiff sought to prove that he bought the property from one Thomas Hamilton Elba, the husband of the defendant, who was the owner of the property. Exhibit B is clear evidence that the property was 25 sold by Elba to the plaintiff. The defendant alleges that Elba got the conveyance of the property by certain representations made by Elba to the defendant. Exhibits C and D are the relevant documents. They were both made on the same day, May 10th, 1932. Exhibit D is a conveyance of the property from Thomas Hamilton 30 Elba and Maria Jane Elba his wife, the defendant, on one part to one Claude Emile Wright. The property was alleged to be con­veyed for the sum of £350. Exhibit C is a conveyance of the same property from Claude Emile Wright to Thomas Hamilton Elba.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:419.7pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">The consideration is the same—the amount of £350.                                                                                                             35</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:26.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">The defendant states that this was a convenient arrangement between husband and wife on the suggestion of the husband for the property to be protected in case of death of either party. The husband Elba admitted that no money passed between them when the deeds were made, and that the £350, or any money alleged to 40 have been the consideration for the alleged sale of the property,<br clear="all" style="page-break-before:always" /><br /> was not in fact paid. If this were a question between the husband and wife, I would have no hesitation in finding that the husband gave no consideration for the conveyance. This, however, would not decide the issue as the plaintiff is a third party and had nothing to do with the agreement between the husband and wife and he gave consideration on purchase of property. What I am concerned about is the legal position on the defence of possession by the defendant, and the plea of long possession for over 12 years and reliance on the Statute of Limitations. The defendant in possession is allowed to plead generally that he is in possession of the property and can thereby rely on the Statute of Limitations. As I have stated before, when that plea is made, the plaintiff must establish facts to show that the defendant cannot rely on such possession. The plaintiff, in his reply, alleged facts to show that he could not be affected by the possession of the defendant. It will be necessary therefore to examine the evidence in support of this plea of long possession, and then also to consider the allegations of the plaintiff in the reply. This will incidentally bring up the question of statutory possession as between husband and wife.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify; text-indent:26.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:110%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">The first witness I propose to consider is the defendant, the first defence witness. She said she was married in 1921 to Elba and that before she was married she had been collecting the rents of the property in dispute. She said she rented a portion of the house to a Mr. E.B. Williams and remained in the other portion. She said her husband never gave her any allowance at any time. She said her husband never collected any rent of the property and that she had never given any account for the rents. In cross-examination, she said Mr. E.B. Williams paid his rent of £2 a month direct to her. She said she received the letter from the husband to apply to the bank for an allowance, but she never applied to the bank for an allowance or for any money, and so received none. This letter is Exhibit E and was written on December 12th, 1949. The defendant said that after Mr. Williams left the house she got another tenant.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify; text-indent:26.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:110%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">In answer to me, the defendant said she was married in 1921 <u>an</u>d left Sierra Leone with her husband the same year. She returned in 1925 and went to reside in the house in question. She apparently left Freetown after 1925, for she further said: “I have not been out of Freetown from 1936.” She said that her husband lived with her in 1936 but left the house in 1937, and that she has been in the house from 1937 to the present. At this stage, at the request of<br clear="all" style="page-break-before:always" /><br /> the parties and with their consent, Mr. E.B. Williams was called as a witness. He stated that he rented the premises at No. 5 Bent Street from 1943 to 1946 and that the arrangement was made with the defendant. He said he paid the rent in the first instance to the defen­dant but receipts were given by her husband. His evidence on this <b>5 </b>could not help us much for he said that he was away most of the time and payment was made by his wife, who, unfortunately, was not called. He however said that he and a Mr. S.C. Benjamin went to arrange about the house and the defendant fixed the rent.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:416.95pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">In answer to Mr. Margai, the plaintiff’s counsel, the witness said 10 he did not know if part of the rent was paid to the bank. He stated he received Exhibit F dated December 14th, 1946, but added he was away from Freetown when the letter was received. He said Elba signed receipts and he could not say whether the wife acted for him. In answer to me, the witness said that he rented the first                                                                                                             15</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:416.95pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">floor of the house, that the defendant was living in the attic, and that at that time the husband was not living in the house. He said he paid the rent to the defendant, but did not know how Elba came to give receipts. He stated that Elba did not live in the house at any time while he was there.                                                                                                            20</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:19.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:416.95pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">The other witness on this point was Thomas Hamilton Elba, the second witness for the plaintiff and the husband of the defendant. So far as is relevant, he said he sold the property to the plaintiff. He also said the property was his. He said he had a tenant, E.B. Williams, up to 1947. He said the tenant paid the rent to the                                                                                                             25</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">defendant and to the bank to his account. He said when he fell ill in 1945 he gave certain instructions in writing. In cross-examina­tion, Elba stated that the property originally belonged to his wife, that she got the property from her former husband, and that he (Elba) lived in the house with the defendant when they were <b>30 </b>married. He then referred to the execution of the deeds, Exhibits C and D, and said that no money passed when they were made, although he said he expended about £700 in repairs to the house. He said, when he and the defendant went to Louanda in 1932, one Woode, now dead, collected the rents; but he cannot say whether 35 Woode accounted to the wife for the rents collected. He said he left the house in 1946 and left the wife in the house. He said he signed the receipts in favour of Williams. He further said it is not true he made the receipts in favour of his wife. In re­examination, the witness said that he gave his wife an allowance of <b>40 </b>£3 a month while she was living in the house; that his wife lived in<br clear="all" style="page-break-before:always" /><br /> a portion of the house while Williams lived in the other portion; that his wife lived in the top floor of the house; and that he spent about £700 to renovate the house. In answer to me, the witness stated that the wife was owner of the house when they were married <u>in</u> 1921 and is still in possession of it. Unfortunately, the receipts given by the witness to Williams were not produced. No evidence was produced to dispute the evidence of the wife that she had been in possession of the premises since 1921, and Elba admits that he lived with the defendant in the house when they were married.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:36px; text-align:justify; text-indent:28.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:110%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">The conclusions which I have come to, on the facts, are that the property was the property of the defendant before she and her husband were married in 1921, and that she continued to exercise all rights as owner from 1921 to the present time. I believe the husband and wife did make Exhibits C and D for the purpose of their convenience. If she had not continued in possession of the house, but had allowed the husband to do so, then his possession might have been sufficient to confer title on the plaintiff. But in this case, I am satisfied that, although the deeds were executed in 1932, the defendant remained in possession and the husband lived in the house of the defendant as her husband, and not, as is suggested by the plaintiff, that the defendant lived in the house of her husband. I am satisfied and find on the evidence that Elba left the house of the defendant in 1937, and that the defendant continued in possession. I believe her evidence that she got the husband to sign receipts in favour of Williams. I have no doubt that Williams regarded the defendant as the owner of the house and dealt with her as such. Elba, in 1949, tried to show he had exercised possession over the premises and for that purpose Exhibits E and F were written, but there was no evidence to show that the defendant was ever a party to those documents. They must have been made for purposes which are not difficult to discern. They do not support the allegations of the plaintiff in proof of the title of Elba. I am satisfied that the defendant has been in undisturbed possession of the premises from 1921 and continued so even after the deed of 1932 was made. I do not accept as proved the allegation in paragraph 3 of the reply that the defendant lived in the house with the permission, approval or consent of her husband, or that she lived in the house as the wife of Elba, or that Elba was supporting her. I am satisfied that, for all the relevant period, in fact from and before 1921, the defendant lived in the house as owner thereof and that Elba did not at any time occupy any portion, but for a short period,<br clear="all" style="page-break-before:always" /><br /> and then only as husband of the defendant. It is of importance to bear in mind that, when the plaintiff bought the property, the defendant was in possession of the premises and he would be affected by the possession of the defendant. There is no evidence that he made any effort to find out why the defendant was in <b>5 </b>possession and the person from whom he bought was not in possession.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:25.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">I have to consider whether, as between husband and wife, possession of land would give title by long possession. I have not decided this case on the question of the ownership of property on 10 the documents for, although I am satisfied that the husband did not give any consideration for the alleged sale of the property mentioned in Exhibits C and D, yet the plaintiff would still have had the right to the property if the wife had allowed the husband to remain in possession for over 12 years. Before 1934, the legal estate in the 15 property of the wife vested in the husband, but since that date, by the Imperial Statutes (Law of Property) Adoption Ordinance <i>(cap. </i>108), the title would be vested in either if either allowed the other to be in possession for over 12 years. In other words statutory title ran in favour of either by s.4 of the Ordinance, which provides as 20 follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:16px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:418.4pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">“So much of English Law as specially restricts the acquisition holding or disposition of real or personal property by a married woman as such ... or limits her capacity to sue or be sued in her own name, shall have no force or effect in the Colony.”                                                                                                         25</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:418.4pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">The effect of this provision is that, as from January 1st, 1934, the Statute of Limitations runs in favour of a married woman. A married woman in possession of property for over 12 years acquires a statutory title to the land even against her husband, provided they were not living in the same property or there are no facts to prevent                                                                                                            30</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:418.4pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">the limitation period from running: see <i>Bankole Bright</i> v. <i>U.A.C. Ltd.</i> (2); 20 <i>Halsburys Laws of England,</i> 2nd ed., at 233; <i>Lowe</i> v. <i>Fox</i> (4); <i>In re Hastings, Hallett</i> v. <i>Hastings</i> (3); Lush, <i>Law of Husband and Wife,</i> 3rd ed., at 361 (1910); and <i>Bankole Bright</i> v. <i>Bankole Bright</i> (1).                                                                                                             35</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:25.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">The title which the wife obtained runs against the husband and the law is not now complicated by questions of adverse title. In all cases of possession where any person has been in undisturbed possession for over 12 years, statutory title exists without proving adverse possession: see 2 <i>Halsburys Laws of England,</i> 2nd ed., 40 at 682, para. 889; <i>N’Jie</i> v. <i>Hall</i> (7); and <i>Nepean</i> v. <i>Doe d. Knight</i> (6).</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:41px; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">In the case of <i>Pratt</i> v. <i>Noah</i> (8), I reviewed the law as to long possession and the question of adverse title, and the quotations (3 S.L. Law Rec. at 62-63) from <i>Lynes</i> v. <i>Snaith</i> (4) may be regarded as guiding authority on the matter. Learned counsel for the plaintiff stated that adverse possession cannot exist between husband and wife living together. This is correct to the extent that while the spouses were living together neither can claim possession of the property of the other on the ground of long possession. That is the ordinary law as regards any party. No person can claim long possession against an owner of property if he and the owner live together. But, if the owner leaves the house and some other person continues in possession, statutory title can run as against the owner, and adverse possession, in the sense that the term was used before 1874, is not necessary to be proved.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:41px; text-align:justify; text-indent:27.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">In this case, the wife was the owner of the property and has always lived in the house. When Exhibits C and D were made, the wife purported to convey the legal estate to the husband. This was in 1932. But the wife still continued to exercise the rights of owner of the property and, in 1937, the husband who had been living with the wife left the house and she, the wife, continued in posses­sion of the property. Even if Exhibits C and D interrupted the possession of the wife, when the husband left the house in 1937 and the wife continued in possession, her possessory title continued or recommenced in 1937. This action was not instituted until April 4th, 1950, and a period of over 12 years must have run, what­ever time one counts from 1937. The husband left the defendant <u>in</u> possession of the house for over 12 years and attempted, by what I must call an ineffective means, to try to interrupt the period of limitation running in favour of the wife. I am satisfied that, although Exhibits C and D were made, the husband never at any time exercised any physical control over the property and his act in leaving the wife in possession of the house for several years is strong evidence that he knew the property was his wife’s and abandoned, if ever he exercised any, which I do not find was ever the case, any right of possession or ownership of the same. In all the circum­stances, I must find that the property was and is that of the defen­dant, that the defence of statutory title is established, and that the plaintiff fails in this action. I have every sympathy for the plaintiff who has spent such large sums of money on the property, but he has himself to blame in spending such money in buying a property without making sure that the vendor had the right to sell. I do</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </div> <p> </p> <div class="WordSection2"> <p> </p> </div> <p> </p> <div> <table height="80" hspace="0" vspace="0" width="528"><tbody><tr><td align="left" style="padding-top:0in; padding-right:0in; padding-bottom:0in; padding-left:0in; height:121px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">hope however he will be able to recover the purchase price from Elba who has impressed me as thoroughly dishonest. There will be judgment for the defendant with costs.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:right; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><i><span style="color:black">Suit dismissed.</span></i></span></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr></tbody></table></div> <p> </p> <div> <table height="755" hspace="0" vspace="0" width="526"><tbody><tr><td align="left" style="padding-top:0in; padding-right:0in; padding-bottom:0in; padding-left:0in; height:1132px" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:16px; text-align:center; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">JABER <i>v.</i> RADAR</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:16px; text-align:center; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="font-variant:small-caps"><span style="color:black">Supreme Court</span></span><span style="color:black"> (Beoku-Betts, J.): March 2nd, 1951<br /> (Civil Case No. 75/50)</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:9px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-20pt; margin-left:27px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">[11 Civil Procedure — pleading — matters which must be specifically pleaded—condition precedent—due performance presumed if non­performance not pleaded: </span></b><span style="color:black">Where one of the parties to an action intends to contest the performance of a condition precedent, he must, under O.XVI, r.10 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1947, state specifi­cally what that condition is and plead its non-performance; otherwise its due performance will be presumed (page 104, lines 16-20).</span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="2"><li class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:9px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:20.15pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark21" id="bookmark21"></a><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">Civil Procedure—pleading—defence—want of notice—defence must be specifically pleaded: </span></b><span style="color:black">Questions of notice or time are matters which are conditions precedent to a right of action and therefore must be pleaded specifically under O.XVI, r.10 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1947 (page 104, lines 3-13).</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:9px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:20.4pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark22" id="bookmark22"></a><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">Civil Procedure — pleading — matters which must be specifically pleaded—defence of want of notice: See [2] above.</span></b></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:9px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-20pt; margin-left:27px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">[41 Equity—relief against forfeiture—court has discretion to grant relief —conduct of tenant to be considered—relief not granted where land­lord’s title impugned or tenant continues breach of covenant: The </span></b><span style="color:black">court has a discretion in deciding whether relief against forfeiture should be granted in a particular case, and in doing so must consider the conduct of the tenant: relief will be refused if he impugned the landlord’s title in a way which amounts to a disclaimer or renuncia­tion of the relationship between them, or if he continues in breach of covenant (page 104, lines 30-33; page 106, lines 7-27).</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:9px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-20pt; margin-left:27px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">[5j Evidence—presumptions—presumption of law—omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta—condition precedent—due performance presumed if non-performance not pleaded: </span></b><span style="color:black">See [1] above.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:20px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-20pt; margin-left:27px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">[61 Land Law—fee simple—incidents—estate confers all rights of owner­ship and transfer subject to existing interests or tenancies not incon­sistent with freehold: A </span></b><span style="color:black">fee simple estate, being the most extensive in quantum and the most absolute in respect to the rights it confers of all estates known to the law, confers the lawful right to exercise over, upon and in respect of the land every act of ownership imaginable, including the right to commit unlimited waste and the</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:center; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><b><span style="color:black">97</span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="Bodytext40" style="text-align:right; margin-bottom:9px"><span style="font-size:9.5pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Courier New&quot;"><span style="color:black">3</span></span></span></p> </td> </tr></tbody></table></div> <p> </p> <div> <table height="20" hspace="0" vspace="0" width="20"><tbody><tr><td align="left" style="padding-top:0in; padding-right:0in; padding-bottom:0in; padding-left:0in; height:29px" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:center; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><b><span style="color:black">10</span></b></span></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr></tbody></table></div> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p style="margin-bottom:47px"> </p> <p> </p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-law-report-citations field--type-string field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Law report citations</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item">1950-1956 ALR SL 88</div> </div> </div> <div class="views-element-container"><div class="view view-eva view-download-conditional view-id-download_conditional view-display-id-entity_view_1 js-view-dom-id-62f09b75b28489aea70621708962ddf0938af341ff94dfa8e4fbeb1dcd2d358b"> <div><div class="views-field views-field-views-conditional-field"><span class="field-content"><div class="WordSection1"> <p align="center" class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:21px; text-align:center; text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">RAHMAN </span></b><i><span style="color:black">v.</span></i><b><span style="color:black"> ELBA</span></b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:21px; text-align:center; text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="font-variant:small-caps"><span style="color:black">Supreme Court</span></span><span style="color:black"> (Beoku-Betts, J.): February 26th, 1951<br /> (Civil Case No. 112/50)</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li class="Bodytext20" style="margin-left:3px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:8px"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="tab-stops:32.6pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark0" id="bookmark0"></a><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">Evidence—burden of proof—recovery of possession of land—plaintiff </span></b><span style="color:black">must succeed on strength of own title: In an action for the recovery of possession of land, the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own title and not on the weakness of the defendant’s (page 91, lines 18-22; page 92, lines 11-13).</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="Bodytext20" style="margin-left:3px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:8px"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="tab-stops:32.6pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark1" id="bookmark1"></a><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">Evidence—burden of proof—title to land—statutory title—proof of adverse possession not necessary to acquire statutory title: A </span></b><span style="color:black">statutory title to property can be acquired by any person who is in undisturbed possession of the property for the statutory limitation period without it being necessary to prove adverse possession on his part (page 95, lines 36-40; page 96, lines 11-14).</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="Bodytext20" style="margin-left:3px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:8px"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:32.6pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark2" id="bookmark2"></a><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">Family Law—property—married women’s property—after 1933 mar­ried woman can acquire statutory title even against husband—must not be living together or facts to prevent limitation period from running: </span></b><span style="color:black">Although a person cannot acquire a statutory title to property if he and the owner live together in the property, time can run against the owner if he leaves and the other person con­tinues in possession; and therefore after 1933 a married woman who is in possession of property for over 12 years acquires a statutory title to the property even as against her husband, provided that they were not living together in the property during that time and there are not facts to prevent the limitation period from running (page 95, lines 26-31; page 96, lines 4-14).</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:19px; margin-left:3px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:94%"><span style="tab-stops:32.6pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark3" id="bookmark3"></a><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">Land Law—adverse possession—need not be proved to acquire statutory title: </span></b><span style="color:black">See [2] above.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:4px; margin-left:3px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:30.95pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark4" id="bookmark4"></a><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">Land Law—capacity to hold and transfer land—married women— after 1933 married woman can acquire statutory title even against husband—must not be living together or facts to prevent limitation period from running: See [3] above.</span></b></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="Bodytext20" style="text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:30.95pt 420.75pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark5" id="bookmark5"></a><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">Land Law—recovery of possession—evidence—burden of proof—          -</span></b></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:4px; text-indent:32.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:90%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">plaintiff must succeed on strength of own title: See [1] above.</span></b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="7"><li class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:4px; margin-left:3px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="tab-stops:30.95pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark6" id="bookmark6"></a><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">Land Law—title—statutory title—cannot be acquired by person who lives with owner in property—time runs against owner if leaves property and other person continues in possession: See [3] above.</span></b></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="Bodytext20"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:31.2pt 420.75pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark7" id="bookmark7"></a><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">Land Law—title—statutory title—evidence—burden of proof—proof          </span></b></span><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="font-family:&quot;Georgia&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">10</span></span></b></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:4px; text-indent:32.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">of adverse possession not necessary: See [2] above.</span></b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="9"><li class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:4px; margin-left:3px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:95%"><span style="tab-stops:31.2pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark8" id="bookmark8"></a><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">Limitation of Actions—land—adverse possession—defendant need not prove adverse possession to acquire statutory title: See [2] above.</span></b></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:15px; margin-left:3px"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="tab-stops:30.55pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark9" id="bookmark9"></a><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">Limitation of Actions—land—recovery of possession—statutory title jg cannot be acquired by person who lives with owner in property— time runs against owner if leaves property and other person con­tinues in possession: See [3] above.</span></b></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:25.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant for a declaration of title to certain property, possession of the property, £0 damages, and further or other relief.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:25.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">The defendant and her husband lived together in the defendant’s property after their marriage. The defendant conveyed the property to her husband, but when he subsequently left her she continued to live in the property and exercised the rights of an owner, renting 25 one portion and collecting the rents from it. She stayed in the remaining portion herself for upwards of 13 years. Her husband then purported to sell the property to the plaintiff while the defen­dant was still in possession. The plaintiff instituted the present action against the defendant for a declaration of title to the property, 30 possession, damages, and further or other relief.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:25.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">The plaintiff contended that the defendant lived in the property of her husband, and that adverse possession could not operate as between a husband and wife living together in the same property.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:19px; text-align:justify; text-indent:25.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">The defendant contended that the Statute of Limitations 35 operated in her favour and that, by being in undisturbed possession of the property for over 12 years, the plaintiff’s right and title had been extinguished.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:4px; text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:110%"><span style="tab-stops:420.75pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">Cases referred to:                                                                                                             40</span></b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:4px; text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:110%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">(1) </span></b><i><span style="color:black">Bankole Bright</span></i><b><span style="color:black"> v. </span></b><i><span style="color:black">Bankole Bright</span></i><b><span style="color:black"> (1943), 9 W.A.C.A. 48.</span></b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="2"><li class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:7px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:110%"><span style="tab-stops:59.7pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark10" id="bookmark10"></a><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i><span style="color:black">Bankole Bright</span></i><span style="color:black"> v. <i>U.A.C. Ltd.</i> (1944), 3 S.L. Law Rec. 23.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:7px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:110%"><span style="tab-stops:59.7pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark11" id="bookmark11"></a><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i><span style="color:black">In re Hastings, Hallett</span></i><span style="color:black"> v. <i>Hastings</i> (1887), 35 Ch.D. 94; 57 L.T. 126.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:7px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:110%"><span style="tab-stops:59.95pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark12" id="bookmark12"></a><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i><span style="color:black">Lowe</span></i><span style="color:black"> v. <i>Fox</i> (1885), 15 Q.B.D. 667; 53 L.T. 886.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:7px; text-align:justify; text-indent:8.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:110%"><span style="tab-stops:39.65pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark13" id="bookmark13"><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">5</span></span></a><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">         (5) <i>Lynes</i> v. <i>Snaith</i> (1899), 1 Q.B.D. 486; 80 L.T. 122.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="6"><li class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:7px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:110%"><span style="tab-stops:59.95pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark14" id="bookmark14"></a><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i><span style="color:black">Nepean</span></i><span style="color:black"> v. <i>Doe d. Knight</i> (1837), 2 M. &amp; W. 894; 150 E.R. 1021.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:7px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:110%"><span style="tab-stops:59.95pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark15" id="bookmark15"></a><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i><span style="color:black">N’jie</span></i><span style="color:black"> v. <i>Hall</i> (1931), 1 W.A.C.A. 100.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:7px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:110%"><span style="tab-stops:59.95pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark16" id="bookmark16"></a><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i><span style="color:black">Pratt</span></i><span style="color:black"> v. <i>Noah</i> (1944), 3 S.L. Law Rec. 60.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><sup><span style="color:black">10</span></sup></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:7px; margin-left:49px; text-align:justify; text-indent:3.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:75%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">Legislation construed:</span></b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="Bodytext20" style="margin-left:49px; text-align:justify; text-indent:3.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:95%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">Imperial Statutes (Law of Property) Adoption Ordinance (Laws of Sierra Leone, 1946, <i>cap.</i> 108), s.4:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:79px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:87%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">The relevant terms of this section are set out at page 95, lines 21-25.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="Bodytext20" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:37.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i><span style="color:black">Margai</span></i><span style="color:black"> for the plaintiff;</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; text-indent:37.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i><span style="color:black">O.I.E. During</span></i><span style="color:black"> for the defendant.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:85px; text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">BEOKU-BETTS, J.:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:64.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">The plaintiff claims, as the owner in fee simple, the house and 20 land situate at No. 5 Bent Street in Freetown. From the statement of claim, the title of the plaintiff is derived from a purchase of the property from one Thomas Hamilton Elba who was stated to be the owner.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:64.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">The plaintiff states that the defendant is occupying the property 25 and refuses to give up possession of the same notwithstanding repeated demands by the plaintiff for the delivery of possession. The plaintiff therefore claims:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:59.95pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><a name="bookmark17" id="bookmark17"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">Declaration of his title to the property.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:61.15pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><a name="bookmark18" id="bookmark18"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">Possession of the property.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:39.65pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">30         (c) Damages for depriving the plaintiff of possession at the rate</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:85px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">of £9 per month from January 24th, 1950 up to delivery of possession.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:37.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">(d) Such further or other relief as the court may think fit.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:7px; text-align:justify; text-indent:64.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">The defendant in her defence stated that she is the owner of 35 the premises and that she has been in undisturbed possession of the same for over 13 years. The defendant further stated that Thomas Hamilton Elba is her husband and that, by a representation made to her by her said husband for the protection of her property, she conveyed the property to her husband on May 10th, 1932, but that 40 she continued in undisturbed possession and has up to the present been exercising all her rights of ownership of the said property.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">She pleaded that the title of the plaintiff is barred by the Statute of Limitations and that his right and title, if any, to the said property were extinguished by virtue of the Act referred to.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:26.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">The plaintiff was granted leave to deliver a reply and he stated that the Statute of Limitations did not apply for the following 5 reasons:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:19px; text-align:justify; text-indent:20pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">“(a) Although the defendant was staying at the said premises she did so with the permission, approval or consent of her husband.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="2" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:60.85pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><a name="bookmark19" id="bookmark19"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">The defendant occupied the premises as lawful wife of 10 the previous owner of the property who was supporting her</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:19px; text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">and against whom her possession could not in the circumstances be adverse.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="3" style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li class="MsoBodyText"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:61.15pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><a name="bookmark20" id="bookmark20"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">The defendant up to June 1947 was occupying only part</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:14.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:419.7pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">of the said premises whilst her husband through whom the                                                                                                             15</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:19px; text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">plaintiff claims was occupying the remaining portion by his tenant from whom he received rents.”</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:26.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">As the plaintiff claims possession and, even from the pleadings, the plaintiff admits that the defendant is in possession and has refused to give up possession, the ordinary law applies that the 20 plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his title and not on the weakness of the defendant’s. To establish his title the plaintiff sought to prove that he bought the property from one Thomas Hamilton Elba, the husband of the defendant, who was the owner of the property. Exhibit B is clear evidence that the property was 25 sold by Elba to the plaintiff. The defendant alleges that Elba got the conveyance of the property by certain representations made by Elba to the defendant. Exhibits C and D are the relevant documents. They were both made on the same day, May 10th, 1932. Exhibit D is a conveyance of the property from Thomas Hamilton 30 Elba and Maria Jane Elba his wife, the defendant, on one part to one Claude Emile Wright. The property was alleged to be con­veyed for the sum of £350. Exhibit C is a conveyance of the same property from Claude Emile Wright to Thomas Hamilton Elba.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:419.7pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">The consideration is the same—the amount of £350.                                                                                                             35</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:26.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">The defendant states that this was a convenient arrangement between husband and wife on the suggestion of the husband for the property to be protected in case of death of either party. The husband Elba admitted that no money passed between them when the deeds were made, and that the £350, or any money alleged to 40 have been the consideration for the alleged sale of the property,<br clear="all" style="page-break-before:always" /><br /> was not in fact paid. If this were a question between the husband and wife, I would have no hesitation in finding that the husband gave no consideration for the conveyance. This, however, would not decide the issue as the plaintiff is a third party and had nothing to do with the agreement between the husband and wife and he gave consideration on purchase of property. What I am concerned about is the legal position on the defence of possession by the defendant, and the plea of long possession for over 12 years and reliance on the Statute of Limitations. The defendant in possession is allowed to plead generally that he is in possession of the property and can thereby rely on the Statute of Limitations. As I have stated before, when that plea is made, the plaintiff must establish facts to show that the defendant cannot rely on such possession. The plaintiff, in his reply, alleged facts to show that he could not be affected by the possession of the defendant. It will be necessary therefore to examine the evidence in support of this plea of long possession, and then also to consider the allegations of the plaintiff in the reply. This will incidentally bring up the question of statutory possession as between husband and wife.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify; text-indent:26.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:110%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">The first witness I propose to consider is the defendant, the first defence witness. She said she was married in 1921 to Elba and that before she was married she had been collecting the rents of the property in dispute. She said she rented a portion of the house to a Mr. E.B. Williams and remained in the other portion. She said her husband never gave her any allowance at any time. She said her husband never collected any rent of the property and that she had never given any account for the rents. In cross-examination, she said Mr. E.B. Williams paid his rent of £2 a month direct to her. She said she received the letter from the husband to apply to the bank for an allowance, but she never applied to the bank for an allowance or for any money, and so received none. This letter is Exhibit E and was written on December 12th, 1949. The defendant said that after Mr. Williams left the house she got another tenant.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:24px; text-align:justify; text-indent:26.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:110%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">In answer to me, the defendant said she was married in 1921 <u>an</u>d left Sierra Leone with her husband the same year. She returned in 1925 and went to reside in the house in question. She apparently left Freetown after 1925, for she further said: “I have not been out of Freetown from 1936.” She said that her husband lived with her in 1936 but left the house in 1937, and that she has been in the house from 1937 to the present. At this stage, at the request of<br clear="all" style="page-break-before:always" /><br /> the parties and with their consent, Mr. E.B. Williams was called as a witness. He stated that he rented the premises at No. 5 Bent Street from 1943 to 1946 and that the arrangement was made with the defendant. He said he paid the rent in the first instance to the defen­dant but receipts were given by her husband. His evidence on this <b>5 </b>could not help us much for he said that he was away most of the time and payment was made by his wife, who, unfortunately, was not called. He however said that he and a Mr. S.C. Benjamin went to arrange about the house and the defendant fixed the rent.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:416.95pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">In answer to Mr. Margai, the plaintiff’s counsel, the witness said 10 he did not know if part of the rent was paid to the bank. He stated he received Exhibit F dated December 14th, 1946, but added he was away from Freetown when the letter was received. He said Elba signed receipts and he could not say whether the wife acted for him. In answer to me, the witness said that he rented the first                                                                                                             15</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:416.95pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">floor of the house, that the defendant was living in the attic, and that at that time the husband was not living in the house. He said he paid the rent to the defendant, but did not know how Elba came to give receipts. He stated that Elba did not live in the house at any time while he was there.                                                                                                            20</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:19.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:416.95pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">The other witness on this point was Thomas Hamilton Elba, the second witness for the plaintiff and the husband of the defendant. So far as is relevant, he said he sold the property to the plaintiff. He also said the property was his. He said he had a tenant, E.B. Williams, up to 1947. He said the tenant paid the rent to the                                                                                                             25</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">defendant and to the bank to his account. He said when he fell ill in 1945 he gave certain instructions in writing. In cross-examina­tion, Elba stated that the property originally belonged to his wife, that she got the property from her former husband, and that he (Elba) lived in the house with the defendant when they were <b>30 </b>married. He then referred to the execution of the deeds, Exhibits C and D, and said that no money passed when they were made, although he said he expended about £700 in repairs to the house. He said, when he and the defendant went to Louanda in 1932, one Woode, now dead, collected the rents; but he cannot say whether 35 Woode accounted to the wife for the rents collected. He said he left the house in 1946 and left the wife in the house. He said he signed the receipts in favour of Williams. He further said it is not true he made the receipts in favour of his wife. In re­examination, the witness said that he gave his wife an allowance of <b>40 </b>£3 a month while she was living in the house; that his wife lived in<br clear="all" style="page-break-before:always" /><br /> a portion of the house while Williams lived in the other portion; that his wife lived in the top floor of the house; and that he spent about £700 to renovate the house. In answer to me, the witness stated that the wife was owner of the house when they were married <u>in</u> 1921 and is still in possession of it. Unfortunately, the receipts given by the witness to Williams were not produced. No evidence was produced to dispute the evidence of the wife that she had been in possession of the premises since 1921, and Elba admits that he lived with the defendant in the house when they were married.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:36px; text-align:justify; text-indent:28.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:110%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">The conclusions which I have come to, on the facts, are that the property was the property of the defendant before she and her husband were married in 1921, and that she continued to exercise all rights as owner from 1921 to the present time. I believe the husband and wife did make Exhibits C and D for the purpose of their convenience. If she had not continued in possession of the house, but had allowed the husband to do so, then his possession might have been sufficient to confer title on the plaintiff. But in this case, I am satisfied that, although the deeds were executed in 1932, the defendant remained in possession and the husband lived in the house of the defendant as her husband, and not, as is suggested by the plaintiff, that the defendant lived in the house of her husband. I am satisfied and find on the evidence that Elba left the house of the defendant in 1937, and that the defendant continued in possession. I believe her evidence that she got the husband to sign receipts in favour of Williams. I have no doubt that Williams regarded the defendant as the owner of the house and dealt with her as such. Elba, in 1949, tried to show he had exercised possession over the premises and for that purpose Exhibits E and F were written, but there was no evidence to show that the defendant was ever a party to those documents. They must have been made for purposes which are not difficult to discern. They do not support the allegations of the plaintiff in proof of the title of Elba. I am satisfied that the defendant has been in undisturbed possession of the premises from 1921 and continued so even after the deed of 1932 was made. I do not accept as proved the allegation in paragraph 3 of the reply that the defendant lived in the house with the permission, approval or consent of her husband, or that she lived in the house as the wife of Elba, or that Elba was supporting her. I am satisfied that, for all the relevant period, in fact from and before 1921, the defendant lived in the house as owner thereof and that Elba did not at any time occupy any portion, but for a short period,<br clear="all" style="page-break-before:always" /><br /> and then only as husband of the defendant. It is of importance to bear in mind that, when the plaintiff bought the property, the defendant was in possession of the premises and he would be affected by the possession of the defendant. There is no evidence that he made any effort to find out why the defendant was in <b>5 </b>possession and the person from whom he bought was not in possession.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:25.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">I have to consider whether, as between husband and wife, possession of land would give title by long possession. I have not decided this case on the question of the ownership of property on 10 the documents for, although I am satisfied that the husband did not give any consideration for the alleged sale of the property mentioned in Exhibits C and D, yet the plaintiff would still have had the right to the property if the wife had allowed the husband to remain in possession for over 12 years. Before 1934, the legal estate in the 15 property of the wife vested in the husband, but since that date, by the Imperial Statutes (Law of Property) Adoption Ordinance <i>(cap. </i>108), the title would be vested in either if either allowed the other to be in possession for over 12 years. In other words statutory title ran in favour of either by s.4 of the Ordinance, which provides as 20 follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:16px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:418.4pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">“So much of English Law as specially restricts the acquisition holding or disposition of real or personal property by a married woman as such ... or limits her capacity to sue or be sued in her own name, shall have no force or effect in the Colony.”                                                                                                         25</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:418.4pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">The effect of this provision is that, as from January 1st, 1934, the Statute of Limitations runs in favour of a married woman. A married woman in possession of property for over 12 years acquires a statutory title to the land even against her husband, provided they were not living in the same property or there are no facts to prevent                                                                                                            30</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:418.4pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">the limitation period from running: see <i>Bankole Bright</i> v. <i>U.A.C. Ltd.</i> (2); 20 <i>Halsburys Laws of England,</i> 2nd ed., at 233; <i>Lowe</i> v. <i>Fox</i> (4); <i>In re Hastings, Hallett</i> v. <i>Hastings</i> (3); Lush, <i>Law of Husband and Wife,</i> 3rd ed., at 361 (1910); and <i>Bankole Bright</i> v. <i>Bankole Bright</i> (1).                                                                                                             35</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:25.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">The title which the wife obtained runs against the husband and the law is not now complicated by questions of adverse title. In all cases of possession where any person has been in undisturbed possession for over 12 years, statutory title exists without proving adverse possession: see 2 <i>Halsburys Laws of England,</i> 2nd ed., 40 at 682, para. 889; <i>N’Jie</i> v. <i>Hall</i> (7); and <i>Nepean</i> v. <i>Doe d. Knight</i> (6).</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:41px; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">In the case of <i>Pratt</i> v. <i>Noah</i> (8), I reviewed the law as to long possession and the question of adverse title, and the quotations (3 S.L. Law Rec. at 62-63) from <i>Lynes</i> v. <i>Snaith</i> (4) may be regarded as guiding authority on the matter. Learned counsel for the plaintiff stated that adverse possession cannot exist between husband and wife living together. This is correct to the extent that while the spouses were living together neither can claim possession of the property of the other on the ground of long possession. That is the ordinary law as regards any party. No person can claim long possession against an owner of property if he and the owner live together. But, if the owner leaves the house and some other person continues in possession, statutory title can run as against the owner, and adverse possession, in the sense that the term was used before 1874, is not necessary to be proved.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:41px; text-align:justify; text-indent:27.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">In this case, the wife was the owner of the property and has always lived in the house. When Exhibits C and D were made, the wife purported to convey the legal estate to the husband. This was in 1932. But the wife still continued to exercise the rights of owner of the property and, in 1937, the husband who had been living with the wife left the house and she, the wife, continued in posses­sion of the property. Even if Exhibits C and D interrupted the possession of the wife, when the husband left the house in 1937 and the wife continued in possession, her possessory title continued or recommenced in 1937. This action was not instituted until April 4th, 1950, and a period of over 12 years must have run, what­ever time one counts from 1937. The husband left the defendant <u>in</u> possession of the house for over 12 years and attempted, by what I must call an ineffective means, to try to interrupt the period of limitation running in favour of the wife. I am satisfied that, although Exhibits C and D were made, the husband never at any time exercised any physical control over the property and his act in leaving the wife in possession of the house for several years is strong evidence that he knew the property was his wife’s and abandoned, if ever he exercised any, which I do not find was ever the case, any right of possession or ownership of the same. In all the circum­stances, I must find that the property was and is that of the defen­dant, that the defence of statutory title is established, and that the plaintiff fails in this action. I have every sympathy for the plaintiff who has spent such large sums of money on the property, but he has himself to blame in spending such money in buying a property without making sure that the vendor had the right to sell. I do</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </div> <p> </p> <div class="WordSection2"> <p> </p> </div> <p> </p> <div> <table height="80" hspace="0" vspace="0" width="528"><tbody><tr><td align="left" style="padding-top:0in; padding-right:0in; padding-bottom:0in; padding-left:0in; height:121px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="color:black">hope however he will be able to recover the purchase price from Elba who has impressed me as thoroughly dishonest. There will be judgment for the defendant with costs.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:right; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><i><span style="color:black">Suit dismissed.</span></i></span></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr></tbody></table></div> <p> </p> <div> <table height="755" hspace="0" vspace="0" width="526"><tbody><tr><td align="left" style="padding-top:0in; padding-right:0in; padding-bottom:0in; padding-left:0in; height:1132px" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:16px; text-align:center; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">JABER <i>v.</i> RADAR</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:16px; text-align:center; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span style="font-variant:small-caps"><span style="color:black">Supreme Court</span></span><span style="color:black"> (Beoku-Betts, J.): March 2nd, 1951<br /> (Civil Case No. 75/50)</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:9px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-20pt; margin-left:27px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">[11 Civil Procedure — pleading — matters which must be specifically pleaded—condition precedent—due performance presumed if non­performance not pleaded: </span></b><span style="color:black">Where one of the parties to an action intends to contest the performance of a condition precedent, he must, under O.XVI, r.10 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1947, state specifi­cally what that condition is and plead its non-performance; otherwise its due performance will be presumed (page 104, lines 16-20).</span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="2"><li class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:9px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:20.15pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark21" id="bookmark21"></a><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">Civil Procedure—pleading—defence—want of notice—defence must be specifically pleaded: </span></b><span style="color:black">Questions of notice or time are matters which are conditions precedent to a right of action and therefore must be pleaded specifically under O.XVI, r.10 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1947 (page 104, lines 3-13).</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:9px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:20.4pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark22" id="bookmark22"></a><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">Civil Procedure — pleading — matters which must be specifically pleaded—defence of want of notice: See [2] above.</span></b></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:9px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-20pt; margin-left:27px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">[41 Equity—relief against forfeiture—court has discretion to grant relief —conduct of tenant to be considered—relief not granted where land­lord’s title impugned or tenant continues breach of covenant: The </span></b><span style="color:black">court has a discretion in deciding whether relief against forfeiture should be granted in a particular case, and in doing so must consider the conduct of the tenant: relief will be refused if he impugned the landlord’s title in a way which amounts to a disclaimer or renuncia­tion of the relationship between them, or if he continues in breach of covenant (page 104, lines 30-33; page 106, lines 7-27).</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:9px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-20pt; margin-left:27px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">[5j Evidence—presumptions—presumption of law—omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta—condition precedent—due performance presumed if non-performance not pleaded: </span></b><span style="color:black">See [1] above.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="Bodytext20" style="margin-bottom:20px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-20pt; margin-left:27px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">[61 Land Law—fee simple—incidents—estate confers all rights of owner­ship and transfer subject to existing interests or tenancies not incon­sistent with freehold: A </span></b><span style="color:black">fee simple estate, being the most extensive in quantum and the most absolute in respect to the rights it confers of all estates known to the law, confers the lawful right to exercise over, upon and in respect of the land every act of ownership imaginable, including the right to commit unlimited waste and the</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:center; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><b><span style="color:black">97</span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="Bodytext40" style="text-align:right; margin-bottom:9px"><span style="font-size:9.5pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Courier New&quot;"><span style="color:black">3</span></span></span></p> </td> </tr></tbody></table></div> <p> </p> <div> <table height="20" hspace="0" vspace="0" width="20"><tbody><tr><td align="left" style="padding-top:0in; padding-right:0in; padding-bottom:0in; padding-left:0in; height:29px" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:center; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Georgia,serif"><b><span style="color:black">10</span></b></span></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr></tbody></table></div> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p style="margin-bottom:47px"> </p> <p> </p></span></div></div> </div> </div> Tue, 09 Nov 2021 15:09:28 +0000 Leroy 3298 at http://sierralii.gov.sl In Re Rural area Ordinance (CIVIL CASE 228 of 1950) [1950] SLSC 26 (14 December 1950); http://sierralii.gov.sl/sl/judgment/supreme-court/1950/26 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">In Re Rural area Ordinance (CIVIL CASE 228 of 1950) [1950] SLSC 26 (14 December 1950);</span> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Leroy</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Tue, 11/09/2021 - 12:10</span> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-search-summary field--type-text-with-summary field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Search summary</div> <div class="field__item"><p><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="font-size:13.0pt"><span style="color:black">Local Government—elections—election petitions—security for costs— Rural Area Ordinance, 1949, s.37(l) imperative and absolute—failure to give security as required renders petition invalid</span></span></b></span></p> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-files field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Download</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf"> <a href="https://media.sierralii.org/files/judgments/slsc/1950/26/1950-slsc-26.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=158465">1950-slsc-26.pdf</a></span> </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field__item"><p class="Bodytext30" style="text-align:right; margin-right:53px; margin-bottom:17px"><span style="font-size:7.5pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Courier New&quot;"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span class="Bodytext3" style="font-weight:bold"><span style="color:black">S.C.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:17px; margin-left:169px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-127.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:90%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:90%"><span style="color:black">IN RE RURAL AREA ORDINANCE, 1949 and IN RE DECISION OF RETURNING OFFICER</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-right:105px; margin-bottom:17px; margin-left:51px; text-align:right; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:418.5pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-variant:small-caps"><span style="color:black">Supreme Court</span></span><span style="color:black"> (Kingsley, J.): December 14th, 1950 (Civil Case No. 228/50)                                                              <b>g</b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="tab-stops:22.5pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark0" id="bookmark0"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="color:black">Local Government—elections—election petitions—security for costs— Rural Area Ordinance, 1949, s.37(l) imperative and absolute—failure to give security as required renders petition invalid: </span></span></span></b></span><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="color:black">Sub-section (1) of s.37 of the Rural Area Ordinance, 1949 is imperative and absolute</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-indent:24.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="tab-stops:418.5pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="color:black">in providing that a petitioner “shall give security for costs” at the                                                                                                             </span></span></span><b><span style="color:black">10</span></b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:8px; margin-left:32px; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="color:black">time of presenting an election petition or within three days afterwards, and therefore non-compliance with this procedure renders the petition invalid (page 86, lines 27-31).</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="2"><li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:12px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="tab-stops:22.5pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark1" id="bookmark1"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="color:black">Statutes—operation—mandatory and directory enactments—Rural Area Ordinance, 1949, s.37(l) imperative and absolute: </span></span></span></b></span><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="color:black">See [1] above. <b>jg</b></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:25.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">The petitioners petitioned against the validity of an election held under the Rural Area Ordinance. 1949.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:20px; text-align:justify; text-indent:25.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">The petitioners did not, at the time of filing the petition, give security for all costs, charges and expenses payable to any witnesses or respondents, as they were required to do by s.37(l) of the Rural Area Ordinance. At the hearing of the petition the petitioners asked for an adjournment to enable them to take out the necessary summons. The respondents objected on the ground that s.37(l) was imperative and absolute in the procedure it laid down, and therefore the petition should be struck off the file.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:8px; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="color:black">Case referred to:</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:8px; margin-left:24px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-.25in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:418.5pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="color:black">(1) <i>Everett v. Griffiths (No. 2),</i> [1923] 1 K.B. J30; (1922), 128 L.T. 350, applied.                                                                                                        g<sub>0</sub></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:8px; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="color:black">Legislation construed:</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="color:black">Rural Area Ordinance, 1949 (No. 11 of 1949), s.37(l):</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:17px; text-align:justify; text-indent:.25in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="color:black">The relevant terms of this section are set out at page 86, lines 21-24.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:418.5pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="color:black">J.B. Marcus-Jones</span></span></i></span><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="color:black"> and <i>Edmondson</i> for the petitioners;                                                                                                            </span></span><b><span style="color:black">^5</span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:20px; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="color:black">Cole</span></span></i></span><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="color:black"> and <i>Wilson</i> for the respondents.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-indent:24.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">KINGSLEY, J.:</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:24.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">This is a petition against the validity of an election held on</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">June 1st, 1950 in the village of Goderich under the Rural Area 40</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">Ordinance, 1949, and was presented on July 6th, 1950. Its contents<br clear="all" style="page-break-before:always" /><br /> are beside the immediate point. When the petition was called on for hearing, Mr. Edmondson for the petitioners called my attention to the fact that they had not complied with s.37(l,) of the afore­mentioned Ordinance, and he asked for an adjournment to enable him to take out the necessary summons. Mr. Cole for the respon­dents submitted that the section is mandatory and could not be got round. For the information of counsel I would point out that strictly speaking the more correct procedure was for the petitioners’ counsel to have taken out a summons in chambers. However, I granted Mr. Edmondson a further adjournment to enable him to fortify him­self, if this were possible, with some authority whereby I might grant his application. I should say that I did so only out of sympathy with his unfortunate clients. Had they had the intelligence to go to a properly qualified person in the first place, their difficulty would never have arisen. Instead however they chose to go to one of the quack lawyers with whom this area seems at times to be infested, and they have suffered accordingly. They sought Mr. Edmondson’s advice only when the mistake their quack adviser had made was, as I shall indicate, beyond repair.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:43px; text-align:justify; text-indent:26.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">The sub-section against which the petitioners have offended reads: “At the time of presenting an election petition or within three days afterwards, the petitioner shall give security for all costs, charges and expenses which may become payable by him to any witness summoned on his behalf or to any respondent.” No such security has been given and the question I have now to answer is—“Can it be given now?” The answer must quite clearly be in the negative. Our sub-section is a precise replica of s.89(l) of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1889, which is the Act which deals with these matters in England; and in <i>Everett</i> v. <i>Griffiths (No.</i> 2) (1) it was held that the section was “imperative and absolute.” In that case the petition was ordered to be struck off the file, and it is significant that not only had the petitioner been admitted as a poor person to take the proceedings, and not only had the respondents been duly informed of this fact, but in addition the respondents by their summons made in fact an alternative application. They applied that the judge should strike the petition off the file on the ground of the petitioner’s failure to lodge a security for costs pursuant to the section I have quoted, or alternatively that he should order the petitioner forthwith to lodge a security pursuant to the section, and that until he did so all further proceedings should be stayed.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">The granting of this alternative request would in this present case</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="Bodytext20" style="text-align:right; margin-right:51px; margin-bottom:17px"><span style="font-size:9pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span style="color:black">W.A.C.A.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">have satisfied Mr. Edmondson. It is almost precisely what he was asking for the petitioners, namely, an opportunity to deal with the question of security. The trial judge however decided, as I have indicated, that the sub-section was, to quote his words, “imperative and absolute ’’and non-compliance with it was equally fatal even where 5 the offender had been admitted to commence the proceedings as a poor person. His decision was subsequently confirmed on appeal. No question in this case before me arises of the petitioners’ means, even if that were of relevance. It is purely and simply a question of some misguided citizens of Goderich having relied on somebody 10 who was not as clever as he thought and who badly let them down. They have my sympathy for what it is worth, but in the circumstances I have no option but to order that the petition be struck off the file and that the petitioners pay the respondents’ costs.</span></span></span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:73px; text-align:right; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i><span style="color:black">Petition struck off.</span></i></span></span></span></p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-law-report-citations field--type-string field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Law report citations</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item">1950-1956 ALR SL 85</div> </div> </div> <div class="views-element-container"><div class="view view-eva view-download-conditional view-id-download_conditional view-display-id-entity_view_1 js-view-dom-id-b0e7090568d5551ba5a00fd1dcdf420fb455bf538939997f9ba9f9d8a5e5ec4e"> <div><div class="views-field views-field-views-conditional-field"><span class="field-content"><p class="Bodytext30" style="text-align:right; margin-right:53px; margin-bottom:17px"><span style="font-size:7.5pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Courier New&quot;"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span class="Bodytext3" style="font-weight:bold"><span style="color:black">S.C.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:17px; margin-left:169px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-127.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:90%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:90%"><span style="color:black">IN RE RURAL AREA ORDINANCE, 1949 and IN RE DECISION OF RETURNING OFFICER</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-right:105px; margin-bottom:17px; margin-left:51px; text-align:right; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:418.5pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-variant:small-caps"><span style="color:black">Supreme Court</span></span><span style="color:black"> (Kingsley, J.): December 14th, 1950 (Civil Case No. 228/50)                                                              <b>g</b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="tab-stops:22.5pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark0" id="bookmark0"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="color:black">Local Government—elections—election petitions—security for costs— Rural Area Ordinance, 1949, s.37(l) imperative and absolute—failure to give security as required renders petition invalid: </span></span></span></b></span><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="color:black">Sub-section (1) of s.37 of the Rural Area Ordinance, 1949 is imperative and absolute</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-indent:24.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="tab-stops:418.5pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="color:black">in providing that a petitioner “shall give security for costs” at the                                                                                                             </span></span></span><b><span style="color:black">10</span></b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:8px; margin-left:32px; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="color:black">time of presenting an election petition or within three days afterwards, and therefore non-compliance with this procedure renders the petition invalid (page 86, lines 27-31).</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="2"><li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:12px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="tab-stops:22.5pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark1" id="bookmark1"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="color:black">Statutes—operation—mandatory and directory enactments—Rural Area Ordinance, 1949, s.37(l) imperative and absolute: </span></span></span></b></span><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="color:black">See [1] above. <b>jg</b></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:25.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">The petitioners petitioned against the validity of an election held under the Rural Area Ordinance. 1949.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:20px; text-align:justify; text-indent:25.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">The petitioners did not, at the time of filing the petition, give security for all costs, charges and expenses payable to any witnesses or respondents, as they were required to do by s.37(l) of the Rural Area Ordinance. At the hearing of the petition the petitioners asked for an adjournment to enable them to take out the necessary summons. The respondents objected on the ground that s.37(l) was imperative and absolute in the procedure it laid down, and therefore the petition should be struck off the file.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:8px; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="color:black">Case referred to:</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:8px; margin-left:24px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-.25in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:418.5pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="color:black">(1) <i>Everett v. Griffiths (No. 2),</i> [1923] 1 K.B. J30; (1922), 128 L.T. 350, applied.                                                                                                        g<sub>0</sub></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:8px; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="color:black">Legislation construed:</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="color:black">Rural Area Ordinance, 1949 (No. 11 of 1949), s.37(l):</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:17px; text-align:justify; text-indent:.25in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="color:black">The relevant terms of this section are set out at page 86, lines 21-24.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:418.5pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="color:black">J.B. Marcus-Jones</span></span></i></span><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="color:black"> and <i>Edmondson</i> for the petitioners;                                                                                                            </span></span><b><span style="color:black">^5</span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:20px; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="color:black">Cole</span></span></i></span><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="color:black"> and <i>Wilson</i> for the respondents.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-indent:24.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">KINGSLEY, J.:</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:24.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">This is a petition against the validity of an election held on</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">June 1st, 1950 in the village of Goderich under the Rural Area 40</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">Ordinance, 1949, and was presented on July 6th, 1950. Its contents<br clear="all" style="page-break-before:always" /><br /> are beside the immediate point. When the petition was called on for hearing, Mr. Edmondson for the petitioners called my attention to the fact that they had not complied with s.37(l,) of the afore­mentioned Ordinance, and he asked for an adjournment to enable him to take out the necessary summons. Mr. Cole for the respon­dents submitted that the section is mandatory and could not be got round. For the information of counsel I would point out that strictly speaking the more correct procedure was for the petitioners’ counsel to have taken out a summons in chambers. However, I granted Mr. Edmondson a further adjournment to enable him to fortify him­self, if this were possible, with some authority whereby I might grant his application. I should say that I did so only out of sympathy with his unfortunate clients. Had they had the intelligence to go to a properly qualified person in the first place, their difficulty would never have arisen. Instead however they chose to go to one of the quack lawyers with whom this area seems at times to be infested, and they have suffered accordingly. They sought Mr. Edmondson’s advice only when the mistake their quack adviser had made was, as I shall indicate, beyond repair.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:43px; text-align:justify; text-indent:26.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">The sub-section against which the petitioners have offended reads: “At the time of presenting an election petition or within three days afterwards, the petitioner shall give security for all costs, charges and expenses which may become payable by him to any witness summoned on his behalf or to any respondent.” No such security has been given and the question I have now to answer is—“Can it be given now?” The answer must quite clearly be in the negative. Our sub-section is a precise replica of s.89(l) of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1889, which is the Act which deals with these matters in England; and in <i>Everett</i> v. <i>Griffiths (No.</i> 2) (1) it was held that the section was “imperative and absolute.” In that case the petition was ordered to be struck off the file, and it is significant that not only had the petitioner been admitted as a poor person to take the proceedings, and not only had the respondents been duly informed of this fact, but in addition the respondents by their summons made in fact an alternative application. They applied that the judge should strike the petition off the file on the ground of the petitioner’s failure to lodge a security for costs pursuant to the section I have quoted, or alternatively that he should order the petitioner forthwith to lodge a security pursuant to the section, and that until he did so all further proceedings should be stayed.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">The granting of this alternative request would in this present case</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="Bodytext20" style="text-align:right; margin-right:51px; margin-bottom:17px"><span style="font-size:9pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span style="color:black">W.A.C.A.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">have satisfied Mr. Edmondson. It is almost precisely what he was asking for the petitioners, namely, an opportunity to deal with the question of security. The trial judge however decided, as I have indicated, that the sub-section was, to quote his words, “imperative and absolute ’’and non-compliance with it was equally fatal even where 5 the offender had been admitted to commence the proceedings as a poor person. His decision was subsequently confirmed on appeal. No question in this case before me arises of the petitioners’ means, even if that were of relevance. It is purely and simply a question of some misguided citizens of Goderich having relied on somebody 10 who was not as clever as he thought and who badly let them down. They have my sympathy for what it is worth, but in the circumstances I have no option but to order that the petition be struck off the file and that the petitioners pay the respondents’ costs.</span></span></span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:73px; text-align:right; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i><span style="color:black">Petition struck off.</span></i></span></span></span></p></span></div></div> </div> </div> Tue, 09 Nov 2021 12:10:43 +0000 Leroy 3295 at http://sierralii.gov.sl Kirke v Regem (CR APP 19 of 1950) [1950] SLSC 25 (09 November 1950); http://sierralii.gov.sl/sl/judgment/supreme-court/1950/25 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">Kirke v Regem (CR APP 19 of 1950) [1950] SLSC 25 (09 November 1950);</span> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Leroy</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Tue, 11/02/2021 - 15:51</span> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-search-summary field--type-text-with-summary field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Search summary</div> <div class="field__item"><p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:85%"><span style="tab-stops:19.85pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">Criminal Procedure - inspection - locus in quo - inspection should not </span></b></span></span></span></span></span><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="font-size:13.0pt"><span style="color:black">be relied on without evidence of it being called.</span></span></b></span></p> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-files field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Download</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf"> <a href="https://media.sierralii.org/files/judgments/slsc/1950/25/1950-slsc-25.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=108928">1950-slsc-25.pdf</a></span> </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field__item"><p align="right" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:21px; text-align:right; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:85%"><span style="tab-stops:272.65pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">KIRKE <i>v.</i> REGEM                                                          <sub>2Q</sub></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:21px; text-align:center; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-variant:small-caps"><span style="color:black">Supreme Court</span></span><span style="color:black"> (Beoku-Betts, Ag.C.J.): November 9th, 1950<br /> (Cr. App. No. 19/50)</span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:85%"><span style="tab-stops:19.85pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark0" id="bookmark0"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">Criminal Procedure—inspection—locus in quo—inspection should not</span></b></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:8px; margin-left:32px; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:85%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">be relied on without evidence of it being called: A </span></b><span style="color:black">trial magistrate <b>25 </b>who inspects the <i>locus in quo</i> of an alleged offence and proposes to rely on this inspection in reaching a decision should not do so without calling evidence as to what took place at the inspection (page 70, lines 27-31).</span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="2"><li class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:85%"><span style="tab-stops:19.85pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark1" id="bookmark1"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">Criminal Procedure — sentence — imprisonment — imprisonment with 30 hard labour to be imposed only where specifically authorised for offence in question: </span></b><span style="color:black">Imprisonment with hard labour should not be imposed unless by law there is a direct provision for it on conviction</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:8px; text-indent:24.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:85%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">of the offence in question (page 70, lines 35-37).</span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="3"><li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:15px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:85%"><span style="tab-stops:19.85pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark2" id="bookmark2"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">Evidence—inspection—locus in quo—inspection should not be relied on without evidence of it being called: </span></b><span style="color:black">See <b>[1] </b>above.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:24.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">The appellant was charged in a magistrate’s court with careless driving contrary to <span style="font-variant:small-caps">s.14(1)</span> of the Motor Traffic Ordinance <i>(cap.</i> 148).</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:24.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:417.75pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">At the trial the magistrate resolved a difficulty as to the facts of the case by inspecting the <i>locus in quo</i> and relying on her personal                                                                                    40</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">findings there. She did not call evidence as to what took place at<br clear="all" style="page-break-before:always" /><br /> the inspection. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to a fine or, in default, three months’ imprisonment with hard labour, and ordered to pay compensation to the complainant.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:21px; margin-left:37px; text-align:justify; text-indent:27.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">On appeal, the Supreme Court considered whether the trial magistrate properly exercised her power of inspection, and whether imprisonment with hard labour was a permissible sentence in this case.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:15px; margin-left:37px; text-indent:1.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:82%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i><span style="color:black">Miss Wright</span></i><span style="color:black"> for the appellant; <i>Benka-Coker, Ag. Sol.-Gen.,</i> for the Crown.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:71px; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">BEOKU-BETTS, Ag.C.J.:</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:37px; text-indent:27.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">The appellant was charged with the offence of careless driving contrary to <span style="font-variant:small-caps">s.14(1)</span> of the Motor Traffic Ordinance <i>(cap.</i> 148). He was convicted and fined £15, or three months’ imprisonment with hard labour, and ordered to pay 30/- as compensation to the complainant.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:37px; text-align:justify; text-indent:27.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">Against conviction and sentence the appellant has appealed on several grounds. On considering this case, a great deal depends on facts, and the magistrate’s decision showed that she had some difficulty in coming to a conclusion on the facts. She however stated that she inspected the <i>locus in quo</i> and used her findings at the <i>locus in quo</i> to resolve the difficulty on the facts. Unfortunately, although the decision dealt with the <i>locus in quo</i> and the magistrate referred to the facts at the <i>locus in quo,</i> there is no evidence to show that there was any inspection in the notes of evidence. That is clearly wrong. If the magistrate inspects the <i>locus in quo</i> and proposes to rely on this inspection, evidence should be called as to the inspection. The magistrate cannot rely upon her own knowledge of what took place. The magistrate therefore erred in relying upon the result of the <i>locus in quo</i> inspection without calling evidence as to what took place at the inspection.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:37px; text-align:justify; text-indent:27.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">The conviction and sentence cannot be supported. I therefore quash the conviction and order the fine, if paid, to be returned to the appellant, and also the compensation awarded.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:17px; margin-left:37px; text-align:justify; text-indent:27.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><shape filled="f" id="_x0000_s2050" stroked="f" style="position:absolute; left:0; text-align:left; margin-left:440px; margin-top:121px; width:84.4pt; height:16.8pt; text-indent:0; z-index:-251657216" type="#_x0000_t202"><textbox inset="0,0,0,0"></textbox></shape></span></span> <span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">I have in several cases stated that a magistrate should not award imprisonment with hard labour, unless by law there is direct provision for it to be imposed. I do hope the magistrate will in future take care to find out in what cases this can be awarded before including it as part of the sentence of the court. In the result the conviction and sentence are quashed.</span></span></p> <p> </p> <p> </p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-law-report-citations field--type-string field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Law report citations</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item">1950-1956 ALR S.L,69</div> </div> </div> <div class="views-element-container"><div class="view view-eva view-download-conditional view-id-download_conditional view-display-id-entity_view_1 js-view-dom-id-115447db4acd5e49c02cb9908080c1e28c10b4ac873ee040b32b68cb30df87e3"> <div><div class="views-field views-field-views-conditional-field"><span class="field-content"><p align="right" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:21px; text-align:right; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:85%"><span style="tab-stops:272.65pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">KIRKE <i>v.</i> REGEM                                                          <sub>2Q</sub></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:21px; text-align:center; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-variant:small-caps"><span style="color:black">Supreme Court</span></span><span style="color:black"> (Beoku-Betts, Ag.C.J.): November 9th, 1950<br /> (Cr. App. No. 19/50)</span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:85%"><span style="tab-stops:19.85pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark0" id="bookmark0"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">Criminal Procedure—inspection—locus in quo—inspection should not</span></b></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:8px; margin-left:32px; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:85%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">be relied on without evidence of it being called: A </span></b><span style="color:black">trial magistrate <b>25 </b>who inspects the <i>locus in quo</i> of an alleged offence and proposes to rely on this inspection in reaching a decision should not do so without calling evidence as to what took place at the inspection (page 70, lines 27-31).</span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="2"><li class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:85%"><span style="tab-stops:19.85pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark1" id="bookmark1"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">Criminal Procedure — sentence — imprisonment — imprisonment with 30 hard labour to be imposed only where specifically authorised for offence in question: </span></b><span style="color:black">Imprisonment with hard labour should not be imposed unless by law there is a direct provision for it on conviction</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:8px; text-indent:24.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:85%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">of the offence in question (page 70, lines 35-37).</span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="3"><li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:15px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:85%"><span style="tab-stops:19.85pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark2" id="bookmark2"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">Evidence—inspection—locus in quo—inspection should not be relied on without evidence of it being called: </span></b><span style="color:black">See <b>[1] </b>above.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:24.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">The appellant was charged in a magistrate’s court with careless driving contrary to <span style="font-variant:small-caps">s.14(1)</span> of the Motor Traffic Ordinance <i>(cap.</i> 148).</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:24.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:417.75pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">At the trial the magistrate resolved a difficulty as to the facts of the case by inspecting the <i>locus in quo</i> and relying on her personal                                                                                    40</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">findings there. She did not call evidence as to what took place at<br clear="all" style="page-break-before:always" /><br /> the inspection. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to a fine or, in default, three months’ imprisonment with hard labour, and ordered to pay compensation to the complainant.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:21px; margin-left:37px; text-align:justify; text-indent:27.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">On appeal, the Supreme Court considered whether the trial magistrate properly exercised her power of inspection, and whether imprisonment with hard labour was a permissible sentence in this case.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:15px; margin-left:37px; text-indent:1.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:82%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i><span style="color:black">Miss Wright</span></i><span style="color:black"> for the appellant; <i>Benka-Coker, Ag. Sol.-Gen.,</i> for the Crown.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:71px; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">BEOKU-BETTS, Ag.C.J.:</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:37px; text-indent:27.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">The appellant was charged with the offence of careless driving contrary to <span style="font-variant:small-caps">s.14(1)</span> of the Motor Traffic Ordinance <i>(cap.</i> 148). He was convicted and fined £15, or three months’ imprisonment with hard labour, and ordered to pay 30/- as compensation to the complainant.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:37px; text-align:justify; text-indent:27.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">Against conviction and sentence the appellant has appealed on several grounds. On considering this case, a great deal depends on facts, and the magistrate’s decision showed that she had some difficulty in coming to a conclusion on the facts. She however stated that she inspected the <i>locus in quo</i> and used her findings at the <i>locus in quo</i> to resolve the difficulty on the facts. Unfortunately, although the decision dealt with the <i>locus in quo</i> and the magistrate referred to the facts at the <i>locus in quo,</i> there is no evidence to show that there was any inspection in the notes of evidence. That is clearly wrong. If the magistrate inspects the <i>locus in quo</i> and proposes to rely on this inspection, evidence should be called as to the inspection. The magistrate cannot rely upon her own knowledge of what took place. The magistrate therefore erred in relying upon the result of the <i>locus in quo</i> inspection without calling evidence as to what took place at the inspection.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:37px; text-align:justify; text-indent:27.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">The conviction and sentence cannot be supported. I therefore quash the conviction and order the fine, if paid, to be returned to the appellant, and also the compensation awarded.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:17px; margin-left:37px; text-align:justify; text-indent:27.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><shape filled="f" id="_x0000_s2050" stroked="f" style="position:absolute; left:0; text-align:left; margin-left:440px; margin-top:121px; width:84.4pt; height:16.8pt; text-indent:0; z-index:-251657216" type="#_x0000_t202"><textbox inset="0,0,0,0"></textbox></shape></span></span> <span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">I have in several cases stated that a magistrate should not award imprisonment with hard labour, unless by law there is direct provision for it to be imposed. I do hope the magistrate will in future take care to find out in what cases this can be awarded before including it as part of the sentence of the court. In the result the conviction and sentence are quashed.</span></span></p> <p> </p> <p> </p></span></div></div> </div> </div> Tue, 02 Nov 2021 15:51:23 +0000 Leroy 3291 at http://sierralii.gov.sl J.P Holmen Ltd v Katty (CIVIL CASE 17 of 1950) [1950] SLSC 24 (02 November 1950); http://sierralii.gov.sl/sl/judgment/supreme-court/1950/24 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">J.P Holmen Ltd v Katty (CIVIL CASE 17 of 1950) [1950] SLSC 24 (02 November 1950);</span> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Leroy</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Tue, 11/02/2021 - 15:30</span> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-search-summary field--type-text-with-summary field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Search summary</div> <div class="field__item"><p><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="color:black">Employment - safety - claims under Workmen’s Compensation Ordi­nance (cap. 268) - liability in case of workmen employed by contractors  - employer liable only when work undertaken in or for his usual business - existence of regular practice in employer’s kind of busine</span></span></b><strong><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="color:black">ss </span></span></strong></span><strong><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="color:black">irrelevant</span></span></span></strong></p> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-files field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Download</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf"> <a href="https://media.sierralii.org/files/judgments/slsc/1950/24/1950-slsc-24.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=288596">1950-slsc-24.pdf</a></span> </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="WordSection1"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top:20px; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:128px; text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:110%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:110%"><span style="color:black">J.P. HOLMEN LIMITED <i>v.</i> KATTY</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:20px; text-align:center; text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-variant:small-caps"><span style="color:black">Supreme Court</span></span><span style="color:black"> (Kingsley, J.): November 2nd, 1950<br /> (Civil App. No. 17/50)</span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:20px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="tab-stops:20.25pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark0" id="bookmark0"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="color:black">Employment—safety—claims under Workmen’s Compensation Ordi­nance (cap. 268)—liability in case of workmen employed by contractors —employer liable only when work undertaken in or for his usual business—existence of regular practice in employer’s kind of business </span></span></span></b></span><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="color:black">irrelevant: It is not everything done in the interest of an employer’s business which is work undertaken in the course of or for the purposes of his business so as to render him liable to pay com­pensation under s. 23 (1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Ordinance (cap. 268) to a person employed by a contractor engaged to work on his behalf: the question of liability is to be solved by considering whether the work is that usually undertaken by the particular employer in question, and not by considering whether there is a regular practice in that kind of business governing such work (page 67, line 25—page 68, line 17).</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:26.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">The respondent brought an action against the appellants in a magistrate’s court to recover compensation under s.23(l) of the Workmen’s Compensation Order <i>(cap.</i> 268).</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:26.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">The appellants were shipping agents who owned a number of barges used for transport purposes in the harbour vicinity. When two of their barges became unserviceable, they engaged a contractor to dismantle them. A workman employed by the contractor suffered injury in the course of this work, and compensation was claimed in respect of this injury under s.23(l) of the Workmen’s Compensation Ordinance.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:26.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">The trial magistrate found that the dismantling of barges was work done in the course of the appellant’s business, though no evidence was led to show that they normally did it or that it was the normal practice in their business to do it.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:20px; text-align:justify; text-indent:26.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">On appeal, the Supreme Court considered the circumstances in which an employer could be held liable for an injury to a workman employed by a contractor, and whether they pertained in the present case.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:5px; text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:110%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:110%"><span style="color:black">Cases referred to:</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:5px"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:110%"><span style="tab-stops:20.25pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark1" id="bookmark1"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:110%"><span style="color:black">Bush</span></span></span></i></span><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:110%"><span style="color:black"> v. <i>Hawes,</i> [1902] 1 K.B. 216; (1901), 85 L.T. 507, applied.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:19px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:95%"><span style="tab-stops:20.25pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark2" id="bookmark2"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:95%"><span style="color:black">Dittmar</span></span></span></i></span><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:95%"><span style="color:black"> v. <i>Wilson, Sons &amp; Co.,</i> [1909] 1 K.B. 389; (1908), 100 L.T. 212, distinguished.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:7px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:95%"><span style="tab-stops:19.5pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark3" id="bookmark3"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:95%"><span style="color:black">Skates</span></span></span></i></span><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:95%"><span style="color:black"> v. <i>Jones &amp; Co.,</i> [1910] 2 K.B. 903; (1910), 26 T.L.R. 643, <i>dicta</i> of Cozens-Hardy, M.R. applied.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:3px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:19.5pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark4" id="bookmark4"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="color:black">Spiers</span></span></i></span><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="color:black"> v. <i>Elderslie Steamship Co. Ltd.,</i> [1909] S.C. 1259; (1909), 46 Sc. L.R. 893, applied.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:7px; text-align:justify; text-indent:426.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:85%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">5 </span></span><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:85%"><span style="color:black">Legislation construed:</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="color:black">Workmen’s Compensation Ordinance (Laws of Sierra Leone, 1946, <i>cap. </i>268), s.23(l):</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:19px; margin-left:24px; text-align:justify; text-indent:20pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="color:black">“Where any person (in this section referred to as the principal), in the course of or for the purposes of his trade or business, contracts </span></span></span></span><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="font-variant:small-caps"><span style="color:black">, q </span></span></span></span></span></span><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="color:black">with any other person otherwise than as a tributer (which other person is in this section referred to as the contractor) for the execution by or under the contractor of the whole or any part of any work under­taken by the principal, the principal shall be liable to pay to any workman employed in the execution of the work any compensation under this Ordinance which he would have been liable to pay if that workman had been immediately employed by him . . . .”</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="color:black">Dobbs</span></span></i></span><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="color:black"> for the appellants;</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:19px; text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:90%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:90%"><span style="color:black">Margai</span></span></span></i></span><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:90%"><span style="color:black"> for the respondent.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:24.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:417.85pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">KINGSLEY, J.:                                                                                                        20</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:24.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">The short but important point in this appeal is whether the work of dismantling barges was work undertaken by the appellants within the meaning of s.23(l) of the Workmen’s Compensation Ordi­nance <i>(cap.</i> 268). This section is an exact replica of s.6(l) of the English Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1925 and so in coming to 25 my decision I have been on safe ground in examining the various cases referred to in <i>Willis’s Workmens Compensation,</i> 31st ed. (1938). The relevant passage in the learned magistrate’s judgment reads:</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:16px; text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">“In the first place, was the work of dismantling the barges undertaken by the defendant company in the course of or for the 30 purposes of their trade or business? It is in evidence that the defendant company are shipping agents; as such they would normally possess barges and small craft for the transport of cargo from ship to shore, and <i>vice versa.”</i></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:417.85pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">So far the learned magistrate was perfectly correct. Though the 35 point was not brought out as clearly as it ought to have been by learned counsel, I think it a reasonable inference from the evidence that the appellants do in fact own their own barges which they use for transport purposes in the harbour vicinity, and possibly a little further afield also. But the magistrate then went on:  40</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-indent:12.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">“And where a barge is unserviceable, they would normally<br clear="all" style="page-break-before:always" /><br /> break it up so as not to be a danger to navigation or an obstruction, or otherwise dispose of it. It seems to me therefore that the dismantling of the barge was a work which was being done in the course of their business.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:47px; text-align:justify; text-indent:26.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">With the greatest respect to the learned magistrate, I find it difficult to see whence he derives this information. There is certainly nothing on the record which I can see to indicate what shipping agents in general or the appellants in particular do when their barges become unserviceable. The fact that the appellants have had two barges demolished cannot of itself necessarily mean that they demolish all their barges. When this evidence about the two barges was given, the witness was clearly being asked about what work Reffell had done for the appellants. It may well be, to use the magistrate’s words, that they “otherwise dispose of them.” I should here say that in my view no fault is to be attached to the magistrate for having had to fall back on assumptions. Both learned counsel seem to me to have been somewhat remiss in not having dealt more fully with the point of this appeal when the material witnesses were in the box. Both seem rather to have concentrated on the other point as to who in fact was the respondent’s employer.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:47px; text-align:justify; text-indent:26.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">The two really relevant passages occur in the evidence of Mr. Holmen and Mr. Smidt respectively. The former said: “Reffell demolished two barges under separate contracts.” And the latter said: “He (that is, Reffell) took contracts with the company to dismantle some wooden barges and transport the timber. The price of each contract was £30. The £30 was an all-in price to cover everything.” As there was no evidence that the appellants build their own barges or do any shipbuilding at all, the reasonable inference seems to be that as far at any rate as two of their barges are concerned, the appellants employed an independent contractor to take them to pieces, and then either sold the timber or used it for some other purpose. Now was this act of theirs done in the course of or for the purpose of the appellants’ business? In his judgment the learned magistrate said: “The work ‘undertaken’ does not only refer to work which the principal normally undertakes to do for others in the course of his business but also work which he does on his own account.” He quoted two well-known cases: <i>Skates</i> v. <i>Jones &amp; Co.</i> (3) and <i>Bush</i> v. <i>Hawes</i> (1). He has, I think, if I may say so, with respect, been content to glance either at their respective headnotes only or at the passage in <i>Willis</i> which refers to these cases.</span></span></span></span></span></p> </div> <p> </p> <p class="Bodytext20" style="text-align:right; margin-right:52px; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:9pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span style="color:black">S.C.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:26.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">In the former case, two shopkeepers and a billiard saloon keeper decided to go into the skating-rink business, for which purpose they purchased an iron building. Its re-erection they handed out to be done by a contractor, one of whose men met with the accident from which the case arose. It was held that the work of putting up 5 a skating-rink was no part of the usual business of the shopkeepers and their colleague the billiard saloon keeper, and that therefore the building of it was not “undertaken” in the course of or for the purposes of their business.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:26.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:415.45pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">Applying this test to this appeal, I can see no evidence at all jo that the work of dismantling a barge is part of the appellants’ usual business. In his judgment in <i>Skates</i> v. <i>Jones &amp; Co.</i> (3), Cozens- Hardy, M.R. quoted with approval the case of <i>Spiers</i> v. <i>Elderslie Steamship Co. Ltd.</i> (4), where it was held by the Court of Session that shipowners who contracted for the cleaning of the boilers in 15 one of their vessels were not Hable to pay compensation to a man employed by the contractor who was injured by the accident. It was part of their business to have their boilers in good condition, but not to do the operations to put them in good condition. Applying this ruling to this appeal, I cannot see any evidence that it was                                                                                                        20</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">part of or in any way connected with the appellants’ business to dismantle their barges. They are after all shipping agents, not ship­builders or shipbreakers. Cozens-Hardy, M.R. later in his judgment said this ([1910] 2 K.B. at 907-908; 26 T.L.R. at 643-644):</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:16px; text-indent:1.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">“It is not everything done in the interest of the trade or business 25 which falls within the section. I shrink from saying that a cotton spinner who finds one of his boilers out of order and contracts with a boilermaker to replace it with a new boiler is liable to pay compensation to one of the workmen employed by the boilermaker. That work was <i>required</i> by the cotton 30 spinner, but not <i>‘undertaken’</i> by him. He never held himself out as a boilermaker. It was not part of his trade or business to erect boilers, and the whole section has no application to him.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:26.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">Applying this ruling to this appeal, it seems to me, with great respect to the learned magistrate, to put the respondent completely 35 out of court. All that happened in this case surely is this: the appellants found that one of their barges had become unserviceable and wanted it dismantled, so that instead of being a dead loss its timber could in some other way be disposed of, for which purpose they gave the work to Mr. Reffell an independent contractor. To 40 use the precise words of Cozens-Hardy, M.R., the work was <i>required</i><br clear="all" style="page-break-before:always" /><br /> by the appellants but not <i>undertaken</i> by them. The learned Master of the Rolls then went on <i>(ibid.,</i> at 908; 644): “If, however, a man who carries on the trade of a builder builds a house for himself, but contracts with another builder to do part of the work, I think such a ease would fall within the section.” I think it must be this sentence which has led the learned magistrate astray. But in my view a builder doing a building job for himself, though through a sub­contractor, can have no relation to shipping agents, about whom there is no evidence of either shipbuilding or shipbreaking being part of their regular business, handing out to a sub-contractor the breaking-up of one of their barges. As it is stated in <i>Willis,</i> at 193:</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:56px; text-indent:25.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">“In deciding the question it is not permissible to consider whether there is <i>a</i> regular practice in the particular kind of trade to do such work, or whether other persons in the trade do that work for themselves. The question is to be solved by considering the business and work usually undertaken by the particular trader who is alleged to be the principal.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:37px; text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">Reference is made there to the second of the cases on which the learned magistrate relied, namely, <i>Bush</i> v. <i>Hawes</i> (1). In this case a builder, about to put up a building with an iron roof, handed out the roof part of the work, as it was no part of his usual business to do such roof work. One of the sub-contractor’s men was killed and his claim for compensation against the builder failed, the trial judge having found that it was no part of the latter’s business to erect iron roofs.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:37px; text-align:justify; text-indent:27.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">As far as this appeal is concerned, I can see no evidence at all that it was ever part of the appellants’ business as shipping agents to dismantle even their own barges. All that the evidence can at the most add up to is that on two occasions the appellants, finding one of the barges unserviceable, decided to have it dismantled and its timber used for other purposes. For this purpose, they handed out the two jobs at an all-in price to a sub-contractor named Reffell.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:37px; text-align:justify; text-indent:27.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">I have dealt at some length with the two cases of <i>Skates</i> v. <i>Jones •&amp; Co.</i> (3) and <i>Bush</i> v. <i>Hawes</i> (1) because they were apparently both relied on by the learned magistrate. In fairness to the respon­dent, I have of course considered several other well-known cases on this question, including that of <i>Dittmar</i> v. <i>Wilson, Sons &amp; Co.</i> (2). Each case, as Cozens-Hardy, M.R. said here ([1909] 1 K.B. at 396; 100 L.T. at 213), must be decided on its own peculiar conditions. In my view <i>Dittmar s</i> case cannot help the respondent. In it coal merchants with depots in various parts of the world carried on</span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-law-report-citations field--type-string field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Law report citations</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item">1950-1956 ALR S.L,64</div> </div> </div> <div class="views-element-container"><div class="view view-eva view-download-conditional view-id-download_conditional view-display-id-entity_view_1 js-view-dom-id-aafd07704680eee3f9ff5afddbe3a7c222221cd7148d70f2c268e4d6043b32ce"> <div><div class="views-field views-field-views-conditional-field"><span class="field-content"><div class="WordSection1"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top:20px; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:128px; text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:110%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:110%"><span style="color:black">J.P. HOLMEN LIMITED <i>v.</i> KATTY</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:20px; text-align:center; text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-variant:small-caps"><span style="color:black">Supreme Court</span></span><span style="color:black"> (Kingsley, J.): November 2nd, 1950<br /> (Civil App. No. 17/50)</span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:20px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="tab-stops:20.25pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark0" id="bookmark0"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="color:black">Employment—safety—claims under Workmen’s Compensation Ordi­nance (cap. 268)—liability in case of workmen employed by contractors —employer liable only when work undertaken in or for his usual business—existence of regular practice in employer’s kind of business </span></span></span></b></span><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="color:black">irrelevant: It is not everything done in the interest of an employer’s business which is work undertaken in the course of or for the purposes of his business so as to render him liable to pay com­pensation under s. 23 (1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Ordinance (cap. 268) to a person employed by a contractor engaged to work on his behalf: the question of liability is to be solved by considering whether the work is that usually undertaken by the particular employer in question, and not by considering whether there is a regular practice in that kind of business governing such work (page 67, line 25—page 68, line 17).</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:26.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">The respondent brought an action against the appellants in a magistrate’s court to recover compensation under s.23(l) of the Workmen’s Compensation Order <i>(cap.</i> 268).</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:26.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">The appellants were shipping agents who owned a number of barges used for transport purposes in the harbour vicinity. When two of their barges became unserviceable, they engaged a contractor to dismantle them. A workman employed by the contractor suffered injury in the course of this work, and compensation was claimed in respect of this injury under s.23(l) of the Workmen’s Compensation Ordinance.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:26.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">The trial magistrate found that the dismantling of barges was work done in the course of the appellant’s business, though no evidence was led to show that they normally did it or that it was the normal practice in their business to do it.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:20px; text-align:justify; text-indent:26.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">On appeal, the Supreme Court considered the circumstances in which an employer could be held liable for an injury to a workman employed by a contractor, and whether they pertained in the present case.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:5px; text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:110%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:110%"><span style="color:black">Cases referred to:</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:5px"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:110%"><span style="tab-stops:20.25pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark1" id="bookmark1"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:110%"><span style="color:black">Bush</span></span></span></i></span><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:110%"><span style="color:black"> v. <i>Hawes,</i> [1902] 1 K.B. 216; (1901), 85 L.T. 507, applied.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:19px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:95%"><span style="tab-stops:20.25pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark2" id="bookmark2"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:95%"><span style="color:black">Dittmar</span></span></span></i></span><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:95%"><span style="color:black"> v. <i>Wilson, Sons &amp; Co.,</i> [1909] 1 K.B. 389; (1908), 100 L.T. 212, distinguished.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:7px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:95%"><span style="tab-stops:19.5pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark3" id="bookmark3"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:95%"><span style="color:black">Skates</span></span></span></i></span><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:95%"><span style="color:black"> v. <i>Jones &amp; Co.,</i> [1910] 2 K.B. 903; (1910), 26 T.L.R. 643, <i>dicta</i> of Cozens-Hardy, M.R. applied.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:3px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:19.5pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark4" id="bookmark4"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="color:black">Spiers</span></span></i></span><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="color:black"> v. <i>Elderslie Steamship Co. Ltd.,</i> [1909] S.C. 1259; (1909), 46 Sc. L.R. 893, applied.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:7px; text-align:justify; text-indent:426.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:85%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">5 </span></span><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:85%"><span style="color:black">Legislation construed:</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="color:black">Workmen’s Compensation Ordinance (Laws of Sierra Leone, 1946, <i>cap. </i>268), s.23(l):</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:19px; margin-left:24px; text-align:justify; text-indent:20pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="color:black">“Where any person (in this section referred to as the principal), in the course of or for the purposes of his trade or business, contracts </span></span></span></span><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="font-variant:small-caps"><span style="color:black">, q </span></span></span></span></span></span><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="color:black">with any other person otherwise than as a tributer (which other person is in this section referred to as the contractor) for the execution by or under the contractor of the whole or any part of any work under­taken by the principal, the principal shall be liable to pay to any workman employed in the execution of the work any compensation under this Ordinance which he would have been liable to pay if that workman had been immediately employed by him . . . .”</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="color:black">Dobbs</span></span></i></span><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="color:black"> for the appellants;</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:19px; text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:90%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:90%"><span style="color:black">Margai</span></span></span></i></span><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:90%"><span style="color:black"> for the respondent.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:24.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:417.85pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">KINGSLEY, J.:                                                                                                        20</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:24.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">The short but important point in this appeal is whether the work of dismantling barges was work undertaken by the appellants within the meaning of s.23(l) of the Workmen’s Compensation Ordi­nance <i>(cap.</i> 268). This section is an exact replica of s.6(l) of the English Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1925 and so in coming to 25 my decision I have been on safe ground in examining the various cases referred to in <i>Willis’s Workmens Compensation,</i> 31st ed. (1938). The relevant passage in the learned magistrate’s judgment reads:</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:16px; text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">“In the first place, was the work of dismantling the barges undertaken by the defendant company in the course of or for the 30 purposes of their trade or business? It is in evidence that the defendant company are shipping agents; as such they would normally possess barges and small craft for the transport of cargo from ship to shore, and <i>vice versa.”</i></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:417.85pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">So far the learned magistrate was perfectly correct. Though the 35 point was not brought out as clearly as it ought to have been by learned counsel, I think it a reasonable inference from the evidence that the appellants do in fact own their own barges which they use for transport purposes in the harbour vicinity, and possibly a little further afield also. But the magistrate then went on:  40</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-indent:12.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">“And where a barge is unserviceable, they would normally<br clear="all" style="page-break-before:always" /><br /> break it up so as not to be a danger to navigation or an obstruction, or otherwise dispose of it. It seems to me therefore that the dismantling of the barge was a work which was being done in the course of their business.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:47px; text-align:justify; text-indent:26.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">With the greatest respect to the learned magistrate, I find it difficult to see whence he derives this information. There is certainly nothing on the record which I can see to indicate what shipping agents in general or the appellants in particular do when their barges become unserviceable. The fact that the appellants have had two barges demolished cannot of itself necessarily mean that they demolish all their barges. When this evidence about the two barges was given, the witness was clearly being asked about what work Reffell had done for the appellants. It may well be, to use the magistrate’s words, that they “otherwise dispose of them.” I should here say that in my view no fault is to be attached to the magistrate for having had to fall back on assumptions. Both learned counsel seem to me to have been somewhat remiss in not having dealt more fully with the point of this appeal when the material witnesses were in the box. Both seem rather to have concentrated on the other point as to who in fact was the respondent’s employer.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:47px; text-align:justify; text-indent:26.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">The two really relevant passages occur in the evidence of Mr. Holmen and Mr. Smidt respectively. The former said: “Reffell demolished two barges under separate contracts.” And the latter said: “He (that is, Reffell) took contracts with the company to dismantle some wooden barges and transport the timber. The price of each contract was £30. The £30 was an all-in price to cover everything.” As there was no evidence that the appellants build their own barges or do any shipbuilding at all, the reasonable inference seems to be that as far at any rate as two of their barges are concerned, the appellants employed an independent contractor to take them to pieces, and then either sold the timber or used it for some other purpose. Now was this act of theirs done in the course of or for the purpose of the appellants’ business? In his judgment the learned magistrate said: “The work ‘undertaken’ does not only refer to work which the principal normally undertakes to do for others in the course of his business but also work which he does on his own account.” He quoted two well-known cases: <i>Skates</i> v. <i>Jones &amp; Co.</i> (3) and <i>Bush</i> v. <i>Hawes</i> (1). He has, I think, if I may say so, with respect, been content to glance either at their respective headnotes only or at the passage in <i>Willis</i> which refers to these cases.</span></span></span></span></span></p> </div> <p> </p> <p class="Bodytext20" style="text-align:right; margin-right:52px; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:9pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span style="color:black">S.C.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:26.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">In the former case, two shopkeepers and a billiard saloon keeper decided to go into the skating-rink business, for which purpose they purchased an iron building. Its re-erection they handed out to be done by a contractor, one of whose men met with the accident from which the case arose. It was held that the work of putting up 5 a skating-rink was no part of the usual business of the shopkeepers and their colleague the billiard saloon keeper, and that therefore the building of it was not “undertaken” in the course of or for the purposes of their business.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:26.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:415.45pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">Applying this test to this appeal, I can see no evidence at all jo that the work of dismantling a barge is part of the appellants’ usual business. In his judgment in <i>Skates</i> v. <i>Jones &amp; Co.</i> (3), Cozens- Hardy, M.R. quoted with approval the case of <i>Spiers</i> v. <i>Elderslie Steamship Co. Ltd.</i> (4), where it was held by the Court of Session that shipowners who contracted for the cleaning of the boilers in 15 one of their vessels were not Hable to pay compensation to a man employed by the contractor who was injured by the accident. It was part of their business to have their boilers in good condition, but not to do the operations to put them in good condition. Applying this ruling to this appeal, I cannot see any evidence that it was                                                                                                        20</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">part of or in any way connected with the appellants’ business to dismantle their barges. They are after all shipping agents, not ship­builders or shipbreakers. Cozens-Hardy, M.R. later in his judgment said this ([1910] 2 K.B. at 907-908; 26 T.L.R. at 643-644):</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:16px; text-indent:1.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">“It is not everything done in the interest of the trade or business 25 which falls within the section. I shrink from saying that a cotton spinner who finds one of his boilers out of order and contracts with a boilermaker to replace it with a new boiler is liable to pay compensation to one of the workmen employed by the boilermaker. That work was <i>required</i> by the cotton 30 spinner, but not <i>‘undertaken’</i> by him. He never held himself out as a boilermaker. It was not part of his trade or business to erect boilers, and the whole section has no application to him.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:26.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">Applying this ruling to this appeal, it seems to me, with great respect to the learned magistrate, to put the respondent completely 35 out of court. All that happened in this case surely is this: the appellants found that one of their barges had become unserviceable and wanted it dismantled, so that instead of being a dead loss its timber could in some other way be disposed of, for which purpose they gave the work to Mr. Reffell an independent contractor. To 40 use the precise words of Cozens-Hardy, M.R., the work was <i>required</i><br clear="all" style="page-break-before:always" /><br /> by the appellants but not <i>undertaken</i> by them. The learned Master of the Rolls then went on <i>(ibid.,</i> at 908; 644): “If, however, a man who carries on the trade of a builder builds a house for himself, but contracts with another builder to do part of the work, I think such a ease would fall within the section.” I think it must be this sentence which has led the learned magistrate astray. But in my view a builder doing a building job for himself, though through a sub­contractor, can have no relation to shipping agents, about whom there is no evidence of either shipbuilding or shipbreaking being part of their regular business, handing out to a sub-contractor the breaking-up of one of their barges. As it is stated in <i>Willis,</i> at 193:</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:56px; text-indent:25.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">“In deciding the question it is not permissible to consider whether there is <i>a</i> regular practice in the particular kind of trade to do such work, or whether other persons in the trade do that work for themselves. The question is to be solved by considering the business and work usually undertaken by the particular trader who is alleged to be the principal.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:37px; text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">Reference is made there to the second of the cases on which the learned magistrate relied, namely, <i>Bush</i> v. <i>Hawes</i> (1). In this case a builder, about to put up a building with an iron roof, handed out the roof part of the work, as it was no part of his usual business to do such roof work. One of the sub-contractor’s men was killed and his claim for compensation against the builder failed, the trial judge having found that it was no part of the latter’s business to erect iron roofs.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:37px; text-align:justify; text-indent:27.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">As far as this appeal is concerned, I can see no evidence at all that it was ever part of the appellants’ business as shipping agents to dismantle even their own barges. All that the evidence can at the most add up to is that on two occasions the appellants, finding one of the barges unserviceable, decided to have it dismantled and its timber used for other purposes. For this purpose, they handed out the two jobs at an all-in price to a sub-contractor named Reffell.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:37px; text-align:justify; text-indent:27.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">I have dealt at some length with the two cases of <i>Skates</i> v. <i>Jones •&amp; Co.</i> (3) and <i>Bush</i> v. <i>Hawes</i> (1) because they were apparently both relied on by the learned magistrate. In fairness to the respon­dent, I have of course considered several other well-known cases on this question, including that of <i>Dittmar</i> v. <i>Wilson, Sons &amp; Co.</i> (2). Each case, as Cozens-Hardy, M.R. said here ([1909] 1 K.B. at 396; 100 L.T. at 213), must be decided on its own peculiar conditions. In my view <i>Dittmar s</i> case cannot help the respondent. In it coal merchants with depots in various parts of the world carried on</span></span></span></span></p></span></div></div> </div> </div> Tue, 02 Nov 2021 15:30:42 +0000 Leroy 3290 at http://sierralii.gov.sl Wray v Commissioner of Police (CR APP 29 of 1950) [1950] SLSC 23 (09 October 1950); http://sierralii.gov.sl/sl/judgment/supreme-court/1950/23 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">Wray v Commissioner of Police (CR APP 29 of 1950) [1950] SLSC 23 (09 October 1950);</span> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Leroy</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Tue, 11/02/2021 - 14:58</span> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-search-summary field--type-text-with-summary field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Search summary</div> <div class="field__item"><p><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="font-size:13.0pt"><span style="color:black"> Liquor - offences - keeping open licensed premises during prohibited hours - elements of offence - intoxicating liquor must be available to outsiders during prohibited hours - appeal was allowed.</span></span></b></span></p> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-files field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Download</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf"> <a href="https://media.sierralii.org/files/judgments/slsc/1950/23/1950-slsc-23.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=99104">1950-slsc-23.pdf</a></span> </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="WordSection1"> <div class="WordSection1"> <p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:16px; text-align:center; text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="color:black">WRAY <i>v.</i> COMMISSIONER OF POLICE</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:20px; text-align:center; text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-variant:small-caps"><span style="color:black">Supreme Court</span></span><span style="color:black"> (Beoku-Betts, Ag.C.J.): October 9th, 1950<br /> (Cr. App. No. 29/50)</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:69px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-24.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="color:black">[1] Liquor—offences—keeping open licensed premises during prohibited hours—elements of offence—intoxicating liquor must be available to outsiders during prohibited hours: In </span></span></span></b></span><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="color:black">order to constitute the offence of keeping open licensed premises for the sale of intoxicating liquor during prohibited hours there must be a keeping open of the premises to enable people to come in from outside to procure intoxicating liquor, or to get it supplied to them when outside (page 63, lines 19-30).</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:33px; text-align:justify; text-indent:27.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">The appellant was charged in a police magistrate’s court with keeping licensed premises open after closing hours contrary to s.26(2) of the Liquor Licence Ordinance <i>(cap.</i> 121).</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:23px; margin-left:33px; text-align:justify; text-indent:27.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">Several persons were found in the appellant’s licensed premises during the hours of closing. No evidence was led to show whether the drinks being consumed by such persons were intoxicating or not. The appellant was convicted, and appealed to the Supreme Court on the ground that the offence charged could not be constituted unless it was estabhshed that intoxicating liquor was available during prohibited hours.</span></span></span></span></span></p> </div> <p> </p> <div> <table height="15" hspace="0" vspace="0" width="369"><tbody><tr><td align="left" style="padding-top:0in; padding-right:0in; padding-bottom:0in; padding-left:0in; height:15px" valign="top"> <p class="Bodytext20"><span style="font-size:9pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span style="color:black">WRAY <i>v.</i> COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, 1950-56 ALR S.L. 62</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr></tbody></table></div> <p> </p> <div> <table height="15" hspace="0" vspace="0" width="25"><tbody><tr><td align="left" style="padding-top:0in; padding-right:0in; padding-bottom:0in; padding-left:0in; height:15px" valign="top"> <p class="Bodytext20"><span style="font-size:9pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span style="color:black">S.C.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr></tbody></table></div> <p> </p> <div> <table height="114" hspace="0" vspace="0" width="578"><tbody><tr><td align="left" style="padding-top:0in; padding-right:0in; padding-bottom:0in; padding-left:0in; height:114px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:7px; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="color:black">Case referred to:</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:15px; margin-left:24px; text-indent:-.25in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="color:black">(1) <i>Commissioner of Police</i> v. <i>Roberts,</i> [1904] X K.B. 369; (1903), 20 T.L.R. 105.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:423.6pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="color:black">Dobbs</span></span></i></span><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="color:black"> for the appellant;                                                                                                       </span></span><span style="color:black">5</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:11px; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:87%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:87%"><span style="color:black">Benka-Coker, Ag. Sol.-Gen.,</span></span></span></i></span><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:87%"><span style="color:black"> for the respondent.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr></tbody></table></div> <p> </p> <div> <table height="571" hspace="0" vspace="0" width="528"><tbody><tr><td align="left" style="padding-top:0in; padding-right:0in; padding-bottom:0in; padding-left:0in; height:571px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:24.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">BEOKU-BETTS, Ag.C.J.:</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:24.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">This is an appeal against the decision of the Acting Police Magistrate in Court No. 3 on three grounds. Only one ground need be considered. It is that the decision is against the weight of the evidence. The charge was that of keeping liquor-licensed premises open after closing hours. The learned trial magistrate found that two Europeans and others were found in a part of the defendant’s bar after closing hours, and in the glasses of some of those persons were found what the magistrate described as “drinks,” and that some of the occupants of the bar were sipping drinks. There is no evi­dence to show the nature of the “drinks,” <i>i.e.,</i> whether they were intoxicating or not.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:24.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">In a charge such as the one with which the appellant was charged it is not sufficient to show that there were some “drinks” available. It is necessary that the prosecution should prove that intoxicating liquor was available within prohibited hours. In the case of <i>Commissioner of Police</i> v. <i>Roberts</i> (1), it was decided that in order to constitute the offence of keeping open licensed premises for the sale of intoxicating liquor during prohibited hours there must be a keeping open of the premises in the sense that people can come in from the outside to procure intoxicating liquor, or can get it supplied to them when outside. The learned magistrate neglected to con­sider the important requirement that there should be proof of intoxicating liquor supplied.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:24.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">In the circumstances, I have no alternative but to set aside the conviction and sentence and to order that the fine, if paid, be refunded to the appellant.</span></span></span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:right; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i><span style="color:black">Appeal allowed.</span></i></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr></tbody></table></div> <p> </p> <div> <table height="21" hspace="0" vspace="0" width="20"><tbody><tr><td align="left" style="padding-top:0in; padding-right:0in; padding-bottom:0in; padding-left:0in; height:21px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">10</span></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr></tbody></table></div> <p> </p> <div> <table height="21" hspace="0" vspace="0" width="20"><tbody><tr><td align="left" style="padding-top:0in; padding-right:0in; padding-bottom:0in; padding-left:0in; height:21px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">15</span></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr></tbody></table></div> <p> </p> <div> <table height="21" hspace="0" vspace="0" width="21"><tbody><tr><td align="left" style="padding-top:0in; padding-right:0in; padding-bottom:0in; padding-left:0in; height:21px" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:center; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">20</span></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr></tbody></table></div> <p> </p> <div> <table height="21" hspace="0" vspace="0" width="21"><tbody><tr><td align="left" style="padding-top:0in; padding-right:0in; padding-bottom:0in; padding-left:0in; height:21px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">25</span></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr></tbody></table></div> <p> </p> <div> <table height="21" hspace="0" vspace="0" width="20"><tbody><tr><td align="left" style="padding-top:0in; padding-right:0in; padding-bottom:0in; padding-left:0in; height:21px" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:center; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">30</span></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr></tbody></table></div> <p> </p> <div> <table height="21" hspace="0" vspace="0" width="21"><tbody><tr><td align="left" style="padding-top:0in; padding-right:0in; padding-bottom:0in; padding-left:0in; height:21px" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:center; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">35</span></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr></tbody></table></div> <p> </p> <div> <table height="21" hspace="0" vspace="0" width="21"><tbody><tr><td align="left" style="padding-top:0in; padding-right:0in; padding-bottom:0in; padding-left:0in; height:21px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">40</span></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr></tbody></table></div> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p style="margin-bottom:35px"> </p> <p> </p> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-law-report-citations field--type-string field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Law report citations</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item">1950-1956 ALR S.L,62</div> </div> </div> <div class="views-element-container"><div class="view view-eva view-download-conditional view-id-download_conditional view-display-id-entity_view_1 js-view-dom-id-ccbacbbf1b0747794e8ef99d605bcf55ac301c90288d8ac63bab714dbd330807"> <div><div class="views-field views-field-views-conditional-field"><span class="field-content"><div class="WordSection1"> <div class="WordSection1"> <p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:16px; text-align:center; text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="color:black">WRAY <i>v.</i> COMMISSIONER OF POLICE</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:20px; text-align:center; text-indent:0in"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-variant:small-caps"><span style="color:black">Supreme Court</span></span><span style="color:black"> (Beoku-Betts, Ag.C.J.): October 9th, 1950<br /> (Cr. App. No. 29/50)</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:69px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-24.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="color:black">[1] Liquor—offences—keeping open licensed premises during prohibited hours—elements of offence—intoxicating liquor must be available to outsiders during prohibited hours: In </span></span></span></b></span><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="color:black">order to constitute the offence of keeping open licensed premises for the sale of intoxicating liquor during prohibited hours there must be a keeping open of the premises to enable people to come in from outside to procure intoxicating liquor, or to get it supplied to them when outside (page 63, lines 19-30).</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:33px; text-align:justify; text-indent:27.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">The appellant was charged in a police magistrate’s court with keeping licensed premises open after closing hours contrary to s.26(2) of the Liquor Licence Ordinance <i>(cap.</i> 121).</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:23px; margin-left:33px; text-align:justify; text-indent:27.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">Several persons were found in the appellant’s licensed premises during the hours of closing. No evidence was led to show whether the drinks being consumed by such persons were intoxicating or not. The appellant was convicted, and appealed to the Supreme Court on the ground that the offence charged could not be constituted unless it was estabhshed that intoxicating liquor was available during prohibited hours.</span></span></span></span></span></p> </div> <p> </p> <div> <table height="15" hspace="0" vspace="0" width="369"><tbody><tr><td align="left" style="padding-top:0in; padding-right:0in; padding-bottom:0in; padding-left:0in; height:15px" valign="top"> <p class="Bodytext20"><span style="font-size:9pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span style="color:black">WRAY <i>v.</i> COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, 1950-56 ALR S.L. 62</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr></tbody></table></div> <p> </p> <div> <table height="15" hspace="0" vspace="0" width="25"><tbody><tr><td align="left" style="padding-top:0in; padding-right:0in; padding-bottom:0in; padding-left:0in; height:15px" valign="top"> <p class="Bodytext20"><span style="font-size:9pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span style="color:black">S.C.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr></tbody></table></div> <p> </p> <div> <table height="114" hspace="0" vspace="0" width="578"><tbody><tr><td align="left" style="padding-top:0in; padding-right:0in; padding-bottom:0in; padding-left:0in; height:114px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:7px; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="color:black">Case referred to:</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:15px; margin-left:24px; text-indent:-.25in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="color:black">(1) <i>Commissioner of Police</i> v. <i>Roberts,</i> [1904] X K.B. 369; (1903), 20 T.L.R. 105.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:423.6pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="color:black">Dobbs</span></span></i></span><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="color:black"> for the appellant;                                                                                                       </span></span><span style="color:black">5</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:11px; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:87%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:87%"><span style="color:black">Benka-Coker, Ag. Sol.-Gen.,</span></span></span></i></span><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:87%"><span style="color:black"> for the respondent.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr></tbody></table></div> <p> </p> <div> <table height="571" hspace="0" vspace="0" width="528"><tbody><tr><td align="left" style="padding-top:0in; padding-right:0in; padding-bottom:0in; padding-left:0in; height:571px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:24.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">BEOKU-BETTS, Ag.C.J.:</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:24.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">This is an appeal against the decision of the Acting Police Magistrate in Court No. 3 on three grounds. Only one ground need be considered. It is that the decision is against the weight of the evidence. The charge was that of keeping liquor-licensed premises open after closing hours. The learned trial magistrate found that two Europeans and others were found in a part of the defendant’s bar after closing hours, and in the glasses of some of those persons were found what the magistrate described as “drinks,” and that some of the occupants of the bar were sipping drinks. There is no evi­dence to show the nature of the “drinks,” <i>i.e.,</i> whether they were intoxicating or not.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:24.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">In a charge such as the one with which the appellant was charged it is not sufficient to show that there were some “drinks” available. It is necessary that the prosecution should prove that intoxicating liquor was available within prohibited hours. In the case of <i>Commissioner of Police</i> v. <i>Roberts</i> (1), it was decided that in order to constitute the offence of keeping open licensed premises for the sale of intoxicating liquor during prohibited hours there must be a keeping open of the premises in the sense that people can come in from the outside to procure intoxicating liquor, or can get it supplied to them when outside. The learned magistrate neglected to con­sider the important requirement that there should be proof of intoxicating liquor supplied.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:24.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">In the circumstances, I have no alternative but to set aside the conviction and sentence and to order that the fine, if paid, be refunded to the appellant.</span></span></span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:right; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i><span style="color:black">Appeal allowed.</span></i></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr></tbody></table></div> <p> </p> <div> <table height="21" hspace="0" vspace="0" width="20"><tbody><tr><td align="left" style="padding-top:0in; padding-right:0in; padding-bottom:0in; padding-left:0in; height:21px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">10</span></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr></tbody></table></div> <p> </p> <div> <table height="21" hspace="0" vspace="0" width="20"><tbody><tr><td align="left" style="padding-top:0in; padding-right:0in; padding-bottom:0in; padding-left:0in; height:21px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">15</span></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr></tbody></table></div> <p> </p> <div> <table height="21" hspace="0" vspace="0" width="21"><tbody><tr><td align="left" style="padding-top:0in; padding-right:0in; padding-bottom:0in; padding-left:0in; height:21px" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:center; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">20</span></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr></tbody></table></div> <p> </p> <div> <table height="21" hspace="0" vspace="0" width="21"><tbody><tr><td align="left" style="padding-top:0in; padding-right:0in; padding-bottom:0in; padding-left:0in; height:21px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">25</span></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr></tbody></table></div> <p> </p> <div> <table height="21" hspace="0" vspace="0" width="20"><tbody><tr><td align="left" style="padding-top:0in; padding-right:0in; padding-bottom:0in; padding-left:0in; height:21px" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:center; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">30</span></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr></tbody></table></div> <p> </p> <div> <table height="21" hspace="0" vspace="0" width="21"><tbody><tr><td align="left" style="padding-top:0in; padding-right:0in; padding-bottom:0in; padding-left:0in; height:21px" valign="top"> <p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:center; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">35</span></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr></tbody></table></div> <p> </p> <div> <table height="21" hspace="0" vspace="0" width="21"><tbody><tr><td align="left" style="padding-top:0in; padding-right:0in; padding-bottom:0in; padding-left:0in; height:21px" valign="top"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">40</span></span></span></span></p> </td> </tr></tbody></table></div> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p style="margin-bottom:35px"> </p> <p> </p> </div></span></div></div> </div> </div> Tue, 02 Nov 2021 14:58:36 +0000 Leroy 3289 at http://sierralii.gov.sl In RE O'reilly (Deceased), Williams v McCormack (CIVIL CASE 260 of 1950) [1950] SLSC 22 (08 September 1950); http://sierralii.gov.sl/sl/judgment/supreme-court/1950/22 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">In RE O&#039;reilly (Deceased), Williams v McCormack (CIVIL CASE 260 of 1950) [1950] SLSC 22 (08 September 1950);</span> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Leroy</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Tue, 11/02/2021 - 11:09</span> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-search-summary field--type-text-with-summary field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Search summary</div> <div class="field__item"><p><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:13.0pt"><span style="color:black">Succession - executors and administrators - number of executors - grant of probate limited to four executors in respect of same property - any other executors can take up powers only when vacancies occur- application was dismissed.</span></span></span></p> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-files field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Download</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf"> <a href="https://media.sierralii.org/files/judgments/slsc/1950/22/1950-slsc-22.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=277667">1950-slsc-22.pdf</a></span> </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field__item"><p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:13px; margin-left:68px; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:85%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">IN RE O’REILLY (DECEASED), WILLIAMS <i>v.</i> McCORMACK</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:16px; text-align:center; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-variant:small-caps"><span style="color:black">Supreme Court</span></span><span style="color:black"> (Kingsley, J.): September 8th, 1950<br /> (Civil Case No. 260/50)</span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:35px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:85%"><span style="tab-stops:54.1pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark0" id="bookmark0"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">Succession—executors and administrators—number of executors— grant of probate limited to four executors in respect of same property —any other executors can take up powers only when vacancies occur: Since O.LII, r.3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1947 provides that where the Rules are silent on a particular matter, English procedure, practice and forms in force on January 1st, 1946 shall apply in Sierra Leone, the absence of a provision in the Rules with regard to the number of executors to whom probate can be granted means that the number prescribed in s.160 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925 is applicable; and therefore the number of executors to whom probate can be granted is limited to four persons in respect of the same property, any remaining executors that have been appointed being able to take up their powers only as vacancies occur among those acting under the grant (page 61, lines 4-16).</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="Bodytext20" style="text-align:right; margin-right:53px; margin-bottom:17px"><span style="font-size:9pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span style="color:black">S.C.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="2"><li class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:84%"><span style="tab-stops:20.65pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark1" id="bookmark1"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">Succession—executors and administrators—number of executors— grant of probate limited to four executors in respect of same property —“property” includes whole of testator’s estate: </span></b><span style="color:black">While s.160 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925 provides that probate may not be granted to more than four persons in respect of</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:9px; margin-left:33px; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:84%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">the same property, the word “property” is deemed to include the 5 whole of the testator’s estate (page 61, lines 11-13).</span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="3"><li class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:85%"><span style="tab-stops:20.65pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark2" id="bookmark2"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">Succession—probate and letters of administration—resealing—original grant of probate by Gold Coast court must be resealed—fresh grant of probate will not be made in respect of property in Sierra Leone under same will: </span></b><span style="color:black">There cannot be two original grants of probate of <b>p) </b>the same will; and therefore although a grant of probate by the Supreme Court of the Gold Coast has no immediate legal effect in Sierra Leone, the Sierra Leone courts will not make a fresh grant</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:9px; margin-left:33px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:85%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">of probate in respect of property in Sierra Leone under the same will but, under s.3 of the Probates (British and Colonial) Recognition Ordinance (cap. 182), will give effect to the original grant by re- 15 sealing it (page 60, line 35—page 61, line 4; page 61, lines 25-37).</span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="4"><li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:17px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:85%"><span style="tab-stops:20.65pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark3" id="bookmark3"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">Succession—probate and letters of administration—resealing—reseal­ing applies to realty as well as to personalty: </span></b><span style="color:black">While Schedule <b>A </b>to the Probates (British and Colonial) Recognition Rules (cap. 182) apparently limits the resealing of a grant of probate to wills of personalty, the effect of the Stamp Duty (No. 2) Order in Council, 1931 is to make the rules as to resealing equally applicable to realty (page 61, line 39—page 62, line 12).</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-indent:25.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">The applicant sought a grant of probate in solemn form.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-indent:25.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:5.8in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">The testator died leaving a will which named seven executors, 25 five of whom were granted probate by the Supreme Court of the Gold Coast. Power was reserved to the remaining two, one of whom was the present applicant, to apply for a similar grant. As the applicant’s interest was in the testator’s property in Sierra Leone, he applied to the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone. He contended                                                                                                                                           30</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:21px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">that since the Supreme Court of the Gold Coast was a court of foreign jurisdiction and the applicant’s interest was in the testator’s property in Sierra Leone, a Gold Coast probate was of no effect, and therefore this was an application for a fresh grant of probate with no question of resealing arising; and in any event, under 35 Schedule A to the Probates (British and Colonial) Recognition Rules <i>(cap.</i> 182), the requirement of resealing applied only to personalty and not to realty.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:9px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:85%"><span style="tab-stops:5.8in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">Case referred to:                                                                                                            </span></b><span style="color:black">40</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:13px; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:85%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">(1) <i>In re Holland,</i> [1936] 3 All E.R. 13; (1936), 155 L.T. 417, applied.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:12px; text-indent:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">Legislation construed:</span></b></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:16px; text-align:justify; text-indent:1pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:85%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">Probates (British and Colonial) Recognition Ordinance (Laws of Sierra Leone, 1946, <i>cap.</i> 182), s.3:</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:12px; margin-left:43px; text-align:justify; text-indent:20.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:85%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">“Where a Court of Probate in the United Kingdom, or in any of the King’s Dominions, has granted Probate or Letters of Administra­tion in respect of the estate of a deceased person, the Probate of [sic] Letters of Administration so granted may, on being produced to, and a copy thereof deposited with, the Supreme Court, be sealed with the seal of the Court, and thereupon shall be of the like force and effect, and have the same operation in the Colony and Protectorate as if granted by the Supreme Court.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:12px; margin-left:16px; text-align:justify; text-indent:1pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">s.4: The relevant terms of this section are set out at page 62, lines 9-11.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:16px; text-align:justify; text-indent:1pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:87%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925 (15 &amp; 16 Geo. V, c.49), s.160:</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:27px; margin-left:43px; text-align:justify; text-indent:20.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:87%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">“(1) Probate or administration shall not be granted to more than four persons in respect of the same property . . . .”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-indent:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i><span style="color:black">Cole</span></i><span style="color:black"> for the applicant.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:23px; text-indent:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:82%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">The respondent appeared in person.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-indent:39.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">KINGSLEY, J.:</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:16px; text-align:justify; text-indent:27.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">This is an application by Emanuel Okoni Williams for a grant of probate in respect of the will of the late Ezekiel Festus O’Reilly. The will is dated January 3rd, 1944, and strange to relate, as though he had so to speak nothing else to do in this world, the testator the very next day passed to the Great Beyond, doubtless to the indescribable grief and sorrow of the seven executors of the will.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:16px; text-align:justify; text-indent:27.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">On February 28th, 1944, five of these executors were granted probate of the will by the Supreme Court of the Gold Coast, power being reserved to the remaining two executors to apply for a like grant. Of these two executors one is the applicant in this case, and he is interested primarily, I am told, in the testator’s estate at No. 19 Liverpool Street, Freetown, which comprises a house and land.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:12px; margin-left:16px; text-align:justify; text-indent:27.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">Mr. Cole for the applicant has submitted that this is an applica­tion for a fresh grant of probate, and that no question of resealing arises, as is suggested by the Registrar. I do not accept this submission, but even if it were correct I do not see how it could avail the applicant. An original grant of probate has already been made to five executors. The fact that it was made by the Supreme Court of the Gold Coast does not make it any the less an original</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:416.3pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">grant; and of course it is elementary to say that there cannot be two original grants of probate of the same will. Five executors having already been granted probate, it is difficult to see how this court can make any further grant. Our own Supreme Court Rules make no provision regarding the number of executors to whom 5 probate can be granted. We are therefore by our O. LII, r.3 thrown back on the English practice in force on January 1st, 1946, and that is laid down in s.160 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, which provides that probate may not be granted to more than four persons in regard to the same estate. <b>10 </b>The word actually used in the section is “property” but in <i>In re Holland</i> (1) it was held that the word “property” included the whole of a testator’s estate. The corollary to this of course is that where probate has been granted to four executors, any remaining executors can take up their powers only as vacancies occur among the acting 15 executors. No vacancy among the acting executors having been notified to this court, I fail to see therefore how this court can at present make any further grant, even if it had itself made the original grant. The Gold Coast apparently has no limitation on the number of executors to whom probate may be granted. <b>20</b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:25.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:416.3pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">Mr. Cole further submitted that the Supreme Court of the Gold Coast is a court of foreign jurisdiction, and said: “My client wishes to deal with the testator’s property in Sierra Leone. A Gold Coast probate can have no effect here. Therefore I must ask for a fresh grant.” The proposition that a Gold Coast probate has no effect 25 in Sierra Leone is correct, but that he must ask for a fresh grant is quite wrong. Indeed it is because a Gold Coast probate <i>per se </i>cannot affect property in Sierra Leone that the Probates (British and Colonial) Recognition Ordinance <i>(cap.</i> 182) was enacted. The posi­tion in this application is in my view clearly and completely covered                           30</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:416.3pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">by s.3 of that Ordinance which, applied to this case, in effect says that the Supreme Court of the Gold Coast having granted probate in respect of the estate of the late Ezekiel Festus O’Reilly, in order to make that grant effective as regards any estate left by the deceased in Sierra Leone the grant must be sealed with the seal                                                                                                         35</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">of the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone; and I hold that that is what must be done in this case. The applicant will of course have first to exercise the power reserved to him under the original grant.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:25.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">Mr. Cole made one further submission with which I think I ought to deal. He referred me to the Probates (British and 40 Colonial) Recognition Rules <i>(cap.</i> 182) and the form in Schedule A<br clear="all" style="page-break-before:always" /><br /> thereof, and he suggested that it was clear that the question of resealing applied only to personalty. I reject this submission and I do so for this reason. These Rules were enacted in 1915 when stamp duty on probate was payable only in respect of personalty. Indeed it was not until 1931, by the Stamp Duty (No. 2) Order in Council of that year, that it became payable in respect of realty as well. As s.4 of the Probates (British and Colonial) Recognition Ordinance provides that before sealing a probate the court must be satisfied that “Probate duty has been paid in respect of so much (if any) of the estate as is liable to Probate duty in the Colony and Protectorate,” and as realty was not Hable at the time to any duty, it is clear why the sole mention in the Rules is of personalty.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:28px; text-align:justify; text-indent:27.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">The application for probate in this case in my view was rightly refused, and I uphold the Registrar’s decision. The Registrar must have his taxed costs.</span></span></span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-right:21px; margin-bottom:49px; text-align:right; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i><span style="color:black">Application dismissed.</span></i></span></span></span></p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-law-report-citations field--type-string field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Law report citations</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item">1950-1956 ALR S.L,58</div> </div> </div> <div class="views-element-container"><div class="view view-eva view-download-conditional view-id-download_conditional view-display-id-entity_view_1 js-view-dom-id-ad9baf055a7b3a1495337eaed0fd86bad2b86cc92db865ba9ae69e9bd8222b8d"> <div><div class="views-field views-field-views-conditional-field"><span class="field-content"><p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:13px; margin-left:68px; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:85%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">IN RE O’REILLY (DECEASED), WILLIAMS <i>v.</i> McCORMACK</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:16px; text-align:center; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-variant:small-caps"><span style="color:black">Supreme Court</span></span><span style="color:black"> (Kingsley, J.): September 8th, 1950<br /> (Civil Case No. 260/50)</span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:35px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:85%"><span style="tab-stops:54.1pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark0" id="bookmark0"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">Succession—executors and administrators—number of executors— grant of probate limited to four executors in respect of same property —any other executors can take up powers only when vacancies occur: Since O.LII, r.3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1947 provides that where the Rules are silent on a particular matter, English procedure, practice and forms in force on January 1st, 1946 shall apply in Sierra Leone, the absence of a provision in the Rules with regard to the number of executors to whom probate can be granted means that the number prescribed in s.160 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925 is applicable; and therefore the number of executors to whom probate can be granted is limited to four persons in respect of the same property, any remaining executors that have been appointed being able to take up their powers only as vacancies occur among those acting under the grant (page 61, lines 4-16).</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="Bodytext20" style="text-align:right; margin-right:53px; margin-bottom:17px"><span style="font-size:9pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span class="Bodytext2" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-weight:bold"><span style="color:black">S.C.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="2"><li class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:84%"><span style="tab-stops:20.65pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark1" id="bookmark1"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">Succession—executors and administrators—number of executors— grant of probate limited to four executors in respect of same property —“property” includes whole of testator’s estate: </span></b><span style="color:black">While s.160 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925 provides that probate may not be granted to more than four persons in respect of</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:9px; margin-left:33px; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:84%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">the same property, the word “property” is deemed to include the 5 whole of the testator’s estate (page 61, lines 11-13).</span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="3"><li class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:85%"><span style="tab-stops:20.65pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark2" id="bookmark2"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">Succession—probate and letters of administration—resealing—original grant of probate by Gold Coast court must be resealed—fresh grant of probate will not be made in respect of property in Sierra Leone under same will: </span></b><span style="color:black">There cannot be two original grants of probate of <b>p) </b>the same will; and therefore although a grant of probate by the Supreme Court of the Gold Coast has no immediate legal effect in Sierra Leone, the Sierra Leone courts will not make a fresh grant</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:9px; margin-left:33px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:85%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">of probate in respect of property in Sierra Leone under the same will but, under s.3 of the Probates (British and Colonial) Recognition Ordinance (cap. 182), will give effect to the original grant by re- 15 sealing it (page 60, line 35—page 61, line 4; page 61, lines 25-37).</span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="4"><li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:17px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:85%"><span style="tab-stops:20.65pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><a name="bookmark3" id="bookmark3"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">Succession—probate and letters of administration—resealing—reseal­ing applies to realty as well as to personalty: </span></b><span style="color:black">While Schedule <b>A </b>to the Probates (British and Colonial) Recognition Rules (cap. 182) apparently limits the resealing of a grant of probate to wills of personalty, the effect of the Stamp Duty (No. 2) Order in Council, 1931 is to make the rules as to resealing equally applicable to realty (page 61, line 39—page 62, line 12).</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-indent:25.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">The applicant sought a grant of probate in solemn form.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-indent:25.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:5.8in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">The testator died leaving a will which named seven executors, 25 five of whom were granted probate by the Supreme Court of the Gold Coast. Power was reserved to the remaining two, one of whom was the present applicant, to apply for a similar grant. As the applicant’s interest was in the testator’s property in Sierra Leone, he applied to the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone. He contended                                                                                                                                           30</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:21px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">that since the Supreme Court of the Gold Coast was a court of foreign jurisdiction and the applicant’s interest was in the testator’s property in Sierra Leone, a Gold Coast probate was of no effect, and therefore this was an application for a fresh grant of probate with no question of resealing arising; and in any event, under 35 Schedule A to the Probates (British and Colonial) Recognition Rules <i>(cap.</i> 182), the requirement of resealing applied only to personalty and not to realty.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:9px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:85%"><span style="tab-stops:5.8in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">Case referred to:                                                                                                            </span></b><span style="color:black">40</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:13px; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:85%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">(1) <i>In re Holland,</i> [1936] 3 All E.R. 13; (1936), 155 L.T. 417, applied.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:12px; text-indent:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="color:black">Legislation construed:</span></b></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:16px; text-align:justify; text-indent:1pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:85%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">Probates (British and Colonial) Recognition Ordinance (Laws of Sierra Leone, 1946, <i>cap.</i> 182), s.3:</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:12px; margin-left:43px; text-align:justify; text-indent:20.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:85%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">“Where a Court of Probate in the United Kingdom, or in any of the King’s Dominions, has granted Probate or Letters of Administra­tion in respect of the estate of a deceased person, the Probate of [sic] Letters of Administration so granted may, on being produced to, and a copy thereof deposited with, the Supreme Court, be sealed with the seal of the Court, and thereupon shall be of the like force and effect, and have the same operation in the Colony and Protectorate as if granted by the Supreme Court.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:12px; margin-left:16px; text-align:justify; text-indent:1pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">s.4: The relevant terms of this section are set out at page 62, lines 9-11.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:16px; text-align:justify; text-indent:1pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:87%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925 (15 &amp; 16 Geo. V, c.49), s.160:</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:27px; margin-left:43px; text-align:justify; text-indent:20.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:87%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">“(1) Probate or administration shall not be granted to more than four persons in respect of the same property . . . .”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-indent:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i><span style="color:black">Cole</span></i><span style="color:black"> for the applicant.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:23px; text-indent:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:82%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">The respondent appeared in person.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-indent:39.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">KINGSLEY, J.:</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:16px; text-align:justify; text-indent:27.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">This is an application by Emanuel Okoni Williams for a grant of probate in respect of the will of the late Ezekiel Festus O’Reilly. The will is dated January 3rd, 1944, and strange to relate, as though he had so to speak nothing else to do in this world, the testator the very next day passed to the Great Beyond, doubtless to the indescribable grief and sorrow of the seven executors of the will.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:16px; text-align:justify; text-indent:27.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">On February 28th, 1944, five of these executors were granted probate of the will by the Supreme Court of the Gold Coast, power being reserved to the remaining two executors to apply for a like grant. Of these two executors one is the applicant in this case, and he is interested primarily, I am told, in the testator’s estate at No. 19 Liverpool Street, Freetown, which comprises a house and land.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:12px; margin-left:16px; text-align:justify; text-indent:27.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">Mr. Cole for the applicant has submitted that this is an applica­tion for a fresh grant of probate, and that no question of resealing arises, as is suggested by the Registrar. I do not accept this submission, but even if it were correct I do not see how it could avail the applicant. An original grant of probate has already been made to five executors. The fact that it was made by the Supreme Court of the Gold Coast does not make it any the less an original</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:416.3pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">grant; and of course it is elementary to say that there cannot be two original grants of probate of the same will. Five executors having already been granted probate, it is difficult to see how this court can make any further grant. Our own Supreme Court Rules make no provision regarding the number of executors to whom 5 probate can be granted. We are therefore by our O. LII, r.3 thrown back on the English practice in force on January 1st, 1946, and that is laid down in s.160 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, which provides that probate may not be granted to more than four persons in regard to the same estate. <b>10 </b>The word actually used in the section is “property” but in <i>In re Holland</i> (1) it was held that the word “property” included the whole of a testator’s estate. The corollary to this of course is that where probate has been granted to four executors, any remaining executors can take up their powers only as vacancies occur among the acting 15 executors. No vacancy among the acting executors having been notified to this court, I fail to see therefore how this court can at present make any further grant, even if it had itself made the original grant. The Gold Coast apparently has no limitation on the number of executors to whom probate may be granted. <b>20</b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:25.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:416.3pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">Mr. Cole further submitted that the Supreme Court of the Gold Coast is a court of foreign jurisdiction, and said: “My client wishes to deal with the testator’s property in Sierra Leone. A Gold Coast probate can have no effect here. Therefore I must ask for a fresh grant.” The proposition that a Gold Coast probate has no effect 25 in Sierra Leone is correct, but that he must ask for a fresh grant is quite wrong. Indeed it is because a Gold Coast probate <i>per se </i>cannot affect property in Sierra Leone that the Probates (British and Colonial) Recognition Ordinance <i>(cap.</i> 182) was enacted. The posi­tion in this application is in my view clearly and completely covered                           30</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:416.3pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">by s.3 of that Ordinance which, applied to this case, in effect says that the Supreme Court of the Gold Coast having granted probate in respect of the estate of the late Ezekiel Festus O’Reilly, in order to make that grant effective as regards any estate left by the deceased in Sierra Leone the grant must be sealed with the seal                                                                                                         35</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">of the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone; and I hold that that is what must be done in this case. The applicant will of course have first to exercise the power reserved to him under the original grant.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:25.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">Mr. Cole made one further submission with which I think I ought to deal. He referred me to the Probates (British and 40 Colonial) Recognition Rules <i>(cap.</i> 182) and the form in Schedule A<br clear="all" style="page-break-before:always" /><br /> thereof, and he suggested that it was clear that the question of resealing applied only to personalty. I reject this submission and I do so for this reason. These Rules were enacted in 1915 when stamp duty on probate was payable only in respect of personalty. Indeed it was not until 1931, by the Stamp Duty (No. 2) Order in Council of that year, that it became payable in respect of realty as well. As s.4 of the Probates (British and Colonial) Recognition Ordinance provides that before sealing a probate the court must be satisfied that “Probate duty has been paid in respect of so much (if any) of the estate as is liable to Probate duty in the Colony and Protectorate,” and as realty was not Hable at the time to any duty, it is clear why the sole mention in the Rules is of personalty.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:28px; text-align:justify; text-indent:27.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="color:black">The application for probate in this case in my view was rightly refused, and I uphold the Registrar’s decision. The Registrar must have his taxed costs.</span></span></span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-right:21px; margin-bottom:49px; text-align:right; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i><span style="color:black">Application dismissed.</span></i></span></span></span></p></span></div></div> </div> </div> Tue, 02 Nov 2021 11:09:02 +0000 Leroy 3288 at http://sierralii.gov.sl Mustapha A Tarraf v Dr Dennis Sandy and Others (SC 11 of 2020) [2021] SLSC 33 (25 October 2021); http://sierralii.gov.sl/sl/judgment/supreme-court/2021/33 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">Mustapha A Tarraf v Dr Dennis Sandy and Others (SC 11 of 2020) [2021] SLSC 33 (25 October 2021);</span> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Leroy</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Tue, 11/02/2021 - 09:31</span> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-headnote-and-holding field--type-text-long field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Headnote and holding</div> <div class="field__item"><p>Civil Procedure - Recovery of possession of land - Perpetual injunction </p> <p>Land Law - Compulsory acquisition of state land </p> <p>Constitutional Law- Section 28 and 124 of the 1991 Constitution of Sierra Leone </p> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-files field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Download</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf"> <a href="https://media.sierralii.org/files/judgments/slsc/2021/33/2021-slsc-33.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=27338345">2021-slsc-33.pdf</a></span> </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="WordSection1"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:3px"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:358.5pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><span style="color:black">SC 11/2020                                                                              </span></b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:29px"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><u><span style="color:black">IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SIERRA LEONE (ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)</span></u></b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:center; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:125%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><span style="color:black">IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 21 OF THE 1991 CONSTITUTION OF THE<br /> REPUBLIC OF SIERRA LEONE ACT NO. 6 OF 1991</span></b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:center; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:125%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><span style="color:black">IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 124(1) OF THE 1991 CONSTITUTION OF<br /> SIERRA LEONE OF THE REPUBLIC OF SIERRA LEONE ACT NO. 6 OF<br /> 1991</span></b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:103px; text-indent:-70.0pt; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><span style="color:black">IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 127 OF THE 1991 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SIERRA LEONE ACT NO. 6 OF 1991</span></b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:center; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><span style="color:black">IN THE MATTER OF PART XVI RULES 88-98 OF THE SUPREME COURT<br /> RULES 1982</span></b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:center; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:127%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><span style="color:black">IN THE MATTER OF ORDER 43<br /> OF THE HIGH COURT RULES 2007</span></b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:3px"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><span style="color:black">BETWEEN: </span></b><span style="color:black">MUSTAPHA ABU TARRAF</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:3px; margin-left:103px"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">(Suing as the Attorney of Mohamed Kamel Wanza)</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:3px; margin-left:103px"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><shape filled="f" id="_x0000_s2050" stroked="f" style="position:absolute; left:0; text-align:left; margin-left:539px; margin-top:1px; width:85.7pt; height:34.4pt; z-index:-251658240" type="#_x0000_t202"><textbox inset="0,0,0,0"></textbox></shape></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="page:WordSection1"><wrap anchorx="margin" side="left" type="square"><span style="display: none;"> </span><span style="display: none;"> </span><shape filled="f" id="_x0000_s2051" stroked="f" style="position:absolute; left:0; text-align:left; margin-left:539px; margin-top:98px; width:89.1pt; height:70.75pt; z-index:-251657216" type="#_x0000_t202"><textbox inset="0,0,0,0"></textbox></shape></wrap></span></p> <table width="100%"><tbody><tr><td> <div> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:52px"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="color:black">2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant</span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="color:black">3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant</span></span></p> </div> </td> </tr></tbody></table><p> <wrap anchorx="margin" side="left" type="square"></wrap><span style="display: none;"> </span><span style="display: none;"> </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><span style="color:black">AND: </span></b><span style="color:black">DR. DENNIS M. SANDY                                  1st Plaintiff</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:103px; text-indent:1.0pt"> </p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:103px; text-indent:1.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:120%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">THE DIRECTOR</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:103px; text-indent:1.0pt; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:120%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">OF SURVEYS AND LANDS</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:103px; text-indent:1.0pt; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:120%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND MINISTER OF JUSTICE</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:125%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><span style="color:black">C<u>ORAM</u></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="Tableofcontents0" style="text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:358.5pt"><span style="line-height:125%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="Tableofcontents" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">HON. MR. JUSTICE EKUNDAYO E. ROBERTS                      JSC</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="Tableofcontents0" style="text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:358.5pt"><span style="line-height:125%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="Tableofcontents" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">HON. MR JUSTICE ALLAN B. HALLOWAY                              JSC</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="Tableofcontents0" style="text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:358.5pt"><span style="line-height:125%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="Tableofcontents" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">HON. MR JUSTICE ALUSINE S. SESAY                                 JSC</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="Tableofcontents0" style="margin-bottom:24px; text-indent:7.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:right 387.05pt"><span style="line-height:125%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="Tableofcontents" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">HON. MR JUSTICE MANGAY F. DEEN-TARAWALLY JSC HON. MR JUSTICE M. SENGU KOROMA                                                                    JSC</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:3px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><u><span style="color:black">COUNSEL</span></u></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-indent:7.0pt; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">P. LAMBERT ESQ. &amp; E. PAPS-GARNON ESQ for the Plaintiff/Applicant O.l KANU ESQ. &amp; A. CONTEH ESQ. for the Defendants/Respondents</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><u><span style="color:black">RULING/JUDGEMENT</span></u></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:24px"><u><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:218.5pt lined 288.2pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><span style="color:black">Delivered this 25 day of October 2021</span></b></span></span></span></span></span></u></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">The application herein, dated the 30<sup>th</sup> October 2020 and made by MUSTAPHA ABU TARRAF, as the Attorney of MOHAMED KAMEL WANZA, seek answers to the following questions and pray for certain reliefs, pursuant to Section 28 and 124 of the CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE 1991 namely:</span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:9px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="tab-stops:37.25pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><a name="bookmark0" id="bookmark0"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Whether all that property situate, lying and being at Peninsula Road, Sussex in the Western Area of Sierra Leone, more particularly described and delineated on the survey plan numbered LS 1631/90, being claimed by the Defendants/Respondents is State Land in accordance with the definition in Section 2 of the <b>STATE LANDS ACT 1960 </b>or any other legislation in Sierra Leone?</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:9px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:37.25pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><a name="bookmark1" id="bookmark1"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Whether the entering upon the Plaintiff/Applicant’s property aforesaid, by the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants/Respondents with a group of armed men chasing the workers and security guards, putting up a sign board with the inscription ‘THIS IS STATE LAND’, is in accordance with the process of compulsory acquisition of property by the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE, as provided for under Section 21 of the <b>CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE 1991?</b></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:9px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:120%"><span style="tab-stops:37.25pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><a name="bookmark2" id="bookmark2"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Whether the acquisition aforesaid, be it purported or not and the taking of possession of all that property aforesaid, is in compliance with Section 21 of the <b>CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE 1991 </b>and or in compliance with the <b>PUBLIC LANDS ACT CHAPTER 116 OF THE LAWS OF SIERRA LEONE 1960 </b>as amended?</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:35px; margin-left:9px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:37.25pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><a name="bookmark3" id="bookmark3"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Whether the actions of the 1<sup>st</sup> and the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants/Respondents amounts to depriving the Plaintiff/Applicant of the use and enjoyment of his property, the piece or parcel of land and hereditaments aforesaid?</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:17px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">The Plaintiff/Applicant pray that, in the event that the answers to questions, 1,2 and 3 are in the negative and the answer to question 4 is in the affirmative, this Court makes the following Declarations and Orders the following reliefs:</span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:9px; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:37.25pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><a name="bookmark4" id="bookmark4"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">A Declaration that the 1<sup>st</sup> and the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants/Respondent have violated the rights of MOHAMED KAMEL WANZA, the plaintiff herein, contained in Section 21 of the <b>CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA</b></span></span></span></span></span></span> <span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><span style="color:black">LEONE, 1991 </span></b><span style="color:black">in that, DR DENNIS M. SANDY, THE MINISTER OF LANDS, HOUSING AND COUNTRY PLANNING, THE DIRECTOR OF SUEVEYS AND LANDS in the MINISTRY OF LANDS, HOUSING AND COUNTRY PLANNING and the ATTORNEY GENERAL AND MINISTER OF JUSTICE, the Defendants/Respondents herein have forcibly and forcefully and without lawful excuse or authority laid hold of and unlawfully seized and laid claim to all that piece of parcel of land situate, lying and being at Peninsula Road, Sussex in the Western Area of Sierra Leone, the same whereof is owned legally and beneficially by the said Plaintiff/Applicant, the person entitled to possession of the same and who has been the person possessed of and otherwise well and sufficiently entitled to possession of the same for upwards of Thirty (30) years last past at least.</span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:4px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.3pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><a name="bookmark5" id="bookmark5"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">A Declaration that the said acts and actions and the several written and oral declarations of the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants/Respondents are tantamount to a violent wrongful and unlawful deprivation of the property rights of the said Plaintiff/Applicant contrary to the provisions of Section 21 of the <b>CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE 1991 </b>and that the said acts and Declarations of the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants/Respondents are not sanctioned or authorized by the said Constitution nor by the <b>PUBLIC LANDS ACT CHAPTER 16 of the LAWS OF SIERRA LEONE 1960 as </b>amended, nor by any other law or nor by custom or nor by convention.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="tab-stops:36.3pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><a name="bookmark6" id="bookmark6"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">A Declaration that the acts of violence, the use of force perpetrated and</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:17px; margin-left:44px; text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="tab-stops:405.8pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">utilized by the 1<sup>st</sup> and the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants/Respondents with the aid and assistance of armed personnel at the Plaintiff/Applicant’s piece or parcel of land aforesaid in the full view of onlookers, amounts to a breach of the peace in terms of the <b>PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1965 </b>as amended, the state of Emergency which now exists in Sierra Leone and a violent contravention of the oath taken by the said 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd </sup>Defendant/Respondent on the occasion of his being sworn in as a Minister with Cabinet rank by His Excellency, the President of Sierra Leone, which oath is contained in the Third Schedule to the <b>CONSTITUTION </b>aforesaid specifically, the portion where he swore '.... <b>I will support, uphold and maintain the CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE as by law established, so help me God’.                                                </b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="4"><li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:4px; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="tab-stops:36.3pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><a name="bookmark7" id="bookmark7"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">A Declaration that the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent has grossly the provisions of Section 62 of the <b>CONSTITUTION OF</b></span></span></span></span></span></span> <span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:125%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><span style="color:black">1991, </span></b><span style="color:black">in that contrary to the provisions of that Section, he has himself together with others authorized by him, embarked unlawfully on an enterprise which is outside the remit of his office, namely proceeding with armed personnel in a piece or parcel of land owed by a private individual, namely the Plaintiff/Applicant herein, to forcibly seize and take control of the said piece or parcel of land without lawful authority thereby unlawfully wrestling away the powers conferred on the Permanent Secretary, in the Ministry of Lands to supervise the daily and physical activities of the said Ministry.</span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="tab-stops:32.85pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><a name="bookmark8" id="bookmark8"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">A Declaration that the unlawful actions and declarations of the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent in relation to the Plaintiff/Applicant’s ownership of the piece or parcel of land aforesaid are against public policy, in that such actions will encourage the ordinary voting public to believe that, it is permissible conduct for an individual without the support of the law or an order of the Court, to violently take possession of another person’s land.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="tab-stops:32.85pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><a name="bookmark9" id="bookmark9"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">A Declaration that the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent’s conduct, actions, words and declarations during his violent attacks on the said property of the Plaintiff/Applicant are not sanctioned nor authorized by any law in force in Sierra Leone. And that if such actions are not stopped, they may result in eternal conflicts between law abiding and law-breaking citizens of this peaceful country.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:120%"><span style="tab-stops:32.85pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><a name="bookmark10" id="bookmark10"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">A Declaration that the action of the Defendants/Respondents is unconstitutional and amounts to the deprivation of the right to property of the Plaintiff/Applicant and in contravention of Section 21 of the <b>CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE 1991 </b>and its related processes.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:8px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:32.85pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><a name="bookmark11" id="bookmark11"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">A Declaration that the Plaintiff/Applicant’s piece of parcel of land, situate, lying and being at Peninsula Road, Sussex measuring about 9.3019 acres in area is private land belonging to him and based on Deed of Conveyance made between GHAZI R. FAIAD and MOHAMED KAMEL WANZA dated 15<sup>th</sup> November 1990 and registered as No. 1602/90 at page 49 in Volume 444 of the Books of Conveyances kept in the office of the Registrar General at Walpole Street Freetown and Judgements of both the High Court of Sierra Leone, delivered on the 23<sup>rd</sup> March 1994 and the 26<u><sup>th</sup></u> April 2016 and the Court of Appeal of Sierra Leone delivered on the 12th </span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">October 1999.</span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:35px; margin-left:25px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:125%"><span style="tab-stops:48.45pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><a name="bookmark12" id="bookmark12"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">A perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants/Respondents and their successors in office and their servants or agents from entering upon and claiming the Plaintiff/Applicant’s piece or parcel of land aforesaid as State Land or in any manner whatsoever, from interfering with its use and enjoyment by the Plaintiff/Applicant.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:35px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:125%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><a name="bookmark13" id="bookmark13"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Damages to be paid by the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants/Respondents for the trespass and the contravention of the Plaintiff/Applicant’s fundamental right provided for by Section 21 of the <b>CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE 1991.</b></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:35px; margin-left:19px; text-align:justify; text-indent:10.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">11 .Any further order or reliefs as this Court may deem fit and just</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:35px; text-align:justify; text-indent:23.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">12.Costs</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:19px; text-align:justify; text-indent:3.0pt; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">In support of the application aforesaid, is the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU- TARRAF sworn to on the 30<sup>th</sup> October 2020, to which several exhibits are annexed including the following:</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:19px; text-align:justify; text-indent:3.0pt; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Exhibit <b>‘MAT 1’ </b>being a Power of Attorney executed by MOHAMED KAMEL WANZA, the Plaintiff/Applicant herein, on the 13<sup>th</sup> April 2011 nominating, appointing and constituting MUSTAPHA ABU-TARRAF as his Attorney,</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:19px; text-align:justify; text-indent:3.0pt; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Exhibit <b>‘MAT 2’ </b>being a Deed of Conveyance dated the 15<sup>th</sup> November 1990, expressed to be made between MOHAMED GHAZI RACHED FAIAD and the Plaintiff/Applicant herein, duly registered as No. 1602/90 at page 49 in Volume 444 in the Book of Conveyances kept in the Office of the Registrar General in Freetown, in respect of the piece or parcel of land situated at Peninsula Road, Sussex, in the Western Area of Sierra Leone the same delineated on survey plan dated 27<sup>th</sup> July 1990 and numbered LS 1737/90, plot 1 measuring 8.0549 acres in area and Plot 2 measuring 1.2470 acres in area, the said survey plan which had been earlier approved as private property of MOHAMED GHAZI RACHED FAIAD by a survey plan dated 6<sup>th</sup> July 1990 and numbered LS 1631/90 and marked Exhibit <b>‘MAT 3’,</b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:35px; margin-left:19px; text-align:justify; text-indent:3.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Exhibit <b>‘MAT 5’ </b>is a Judgement of the High Court dated 22<sup>nd</sup> March 1994, confirming a grant to the Plaintiff/Applicant that he Recovers Possession of the piece or parcel of land aforesaid, the said Judgement of the was upheld at the Court of Appeal as seen in Exhibit <b>‘MAT 6’,</b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:125%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Exhibit <b>‘MAT 8’ </b>is a Judgement of the High Court dated the 28<sup>th</sup> April 2016, adopting the terms of settlement of the matter, Misc. App 223/09 dated 23<sup>rd </sup>March 2016, the same which inter alia, repeats the acknowledgment that MOHAMED KAMEL WANZA, the Plaintiff/Applicant is the bona fide fee simple owner entitled to permanent ownership and possession of the piece and parcel of land situate at Peninsula Road Sussex Village in the Western Area of Sierra Leone delineated on survey plan dated 27<sup>th</sup> July 1990 and numbered LS 1737/90, Plot 1 measuring 8.0549 acres in area and Plot 2 measuring 1.2470 acres in area, the said survey plan attached to Deed of Conveyance dated 15<sup>th </sup>November 1990 and registered as No. 1602/90 at page 49 in Volume 444 of the Book of Conveyances kept in the Office of the Registrar General in Freetown,</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Exhibit <b>‘MAT 10’ </b>is a letter dated 6<sup>th</sup> July 2020, on the subject <b>‘PROPERTY SITUATED AT PENINSULA ROAD SUSSEX FREETOWN BELONGING TO MOHAMED KAMEL WANZA’ </b>from OSMAN I. KANU, Principal State Counsel in the Law Officers Department writing for and on behalf of the Attorney General and Minister of Justice on the subject <b>PERSISTENT TRESPASS ON LAND SITAUTED AT PEINNSULA ROAD, SUSSEX FREETOWN BELONGING TO MOHAMED KAMEL WANZA’, </b>addressed to PATRICK LAMBERT, the same confirming that the piece or parcel of land aforesaid, is not State Land and is the private property of the Plaintiff/Applicant herein,</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:120%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Exhibit <b>‘MAT 11’ </b>is a letter dated 17<sup>th</sup> July 2020, from LAMBERT AND PARTNERS, Solicitors for the Plaintiff/Applicant, addressed to the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent warning him to desist from trespassing on the piece or parcel of land aforesaid and to stop using men and dressed in purported police and military fatigue to forcefully enter the property aforesaid and put the lives of staff employed by the Plaintiff/Applicant to safeguard the said property at risk, failing which, the Plaintiff/Applicant will take immediate action against the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent in order to protect the said Plaintiff/Applicant’s legal rights and interest in the property aforesaid under the Laws of Sierra Leone,</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Exhibit <b>‘MAT 12’ </b>is a letter dated 6<sup>th</sup> August 2018, on the subject <b>TRESPASS ON LAND SITUATED AT PEINNSULA ROAD, SUSSEX FREETOWN BELONGING TO MOHAMED KAMEL WANZA’ </b>from LAMBERT &amp; PARTNERS, addressed to the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent informing him that the property aforesaid, is not State Land and that his actions amount to Trespass and constitute malicious damage of private property,</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:125%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Exhibit <b>‘MAT 13’ </b>is a letter dated 14<sup>th</sup> August 2020, on the subject <b>‘PROPERTY SITUATED AT PENINSULA ROAD SUSSEX FREETOWN BELONGING TO MOHAMED KAMEL WANZA’ </b>from the office of the ATTORNEY GENERAL &amp; MINISTER OF JUSTICE addressed to the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent in which the Attorney General and Minister of Justice unequivocally stated that, the piece or parcel of land situated at Peninsula Road aforesaid is private land, the Courts having confirmed and recognized that the same belongs to the Plaintiff/Applicant herein,</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Exhibits <b>‘MAT 14’ </b>and <b>‘MAT 15<sup>1-34</sup>’ </b>are photographs depicting the Plaintiff/Applicant’s claim that on the instructions of the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent, persons who entered the piece is parcel of land with the said 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent wrote ‘stop work’ on the gate of the said property and are photographs depicting the trespass and malicious damage on the said property,</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Exhibit <b>‘MAT 16’ </b>is a letter dated 25<sup>th</sup> August 2020, on the subject <b>‘PROPERTY SITUATED AT PENINSULA ROAD SUSSEX FREETOWN BELONGING TO MOHAMED KAMEL WANZA’ </b>from LAMBERT &amp; PARTNERS addressed to the Attorney General and Minister of Justice reporting the matter aforesaid and pleading with him to prevent further trespass on the Plaintiff/Applicant’s property by the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent, under the guise of acting for and on behalf of the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE,</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Exhibit <b>‘MAT 18’ </b>is a letter dated 4<sup>th</sup> September 2020, on the subject <b>‘PROPERTY SITUATED AT PENINSULA ROAD SUSSEX FREETOWN BELONGING TO MOHAMED KAMEL WANZA’ </b>from the Attorney General and Minister of Justice addressed to the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent, reminding him that the land in question is privately owned as adjudged by the Superior Courts of Judicature in Sierra Leone particularly, the Court of Appeal and the High Court, by which the said piece of land was declared a private land, belonging to MOHAMED KAMEL WANZA, the Plaintiff/Applicant herein, requesting the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent further to refrain from his conduct on the same and also to show respect to the laws of the land and adherence to the Judgements as pronounced by the Courts,</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:125%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Exhibits <b>‘MAT 19’ </b>and <b>‘MAT 20’ </b>is a storage pin being a video relating to one of the violent attacks by the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent Plaintiff/Applicant’s property aforesaid, which said attacks took</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:125%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">October 2020 and photos of the violent attacks aforesaid showing the demolition and destruction of the structures on the said property,</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">In further support of the application herein is the supplemental affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU TARRAF sworn to on the 9<sup>th</sup> November 2020. Annexed to the same are the following Exhibits,</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Exhibit <b>‘MAT 22’ </b>being a report dated 21<sup>st</sup> April 2020, done by SYLVANUS A. LUSANIE, Licensed Surveyor on an investigation of the property at Peninsula Road, Sussex Village aforesaid, the subject matter of the application herein,</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:125%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Exhibits <b>‘MAT 29’, ‘MAT 31’ </b>and <b>‘MAT 32’ </b>are the title Deeds of the Plaintiff/Applicant’s predecessors in title in respect of the property at Peninsula Road, Sussex Village aforesaid.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Further to the filing of the application herein by way of an Originating Notice of Motion dated 30<sup>th</sup> October 2020, an Interlocutory Injunction restraining the Defendants/Respondents herein, whether by themselves, their servants, agents and privies from entering on, dealing or interfering with or selling or disposing of the buildings on the piece or parcel of land at Peninsula Road, Sussex Village in the Western Area of Sierra Leone, which is the subject matter of the application herein, was granted on the 10<sup>th</sup> February 2021 pending the hearing and determination of the said application on terms that the Plaintiff/Applicant herein files an undertaking in damages should it turn out that the Interlocutory Injunction aforesaid, ought not to have been granted, the said undertaking in damages which was filed by the Plaintiff/Applicant on the 16<sup>th</sup> February 2021.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">By reason of the Defendants/Respondents’ failure to comply with the conditions requiring them to file their statement of case, imposed upon them under Rule 92(1) and 92(2) of the <b>SUPREME COURT RUILES 1982 </b>requiring them to file their statement of case within Ten (10) days after the Originating Notice of Motion herein dated 30<sup>th</sup> October 2020 and the Plaintiff/Applicant’s statement of case dated the 9<sup>th</sup> November 2020 were served on them. Pursuant to Rule 92(3) of the <b>SUPREME COURT RUILES </b>aforesaid, the REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT issued a certificate of the Defendant/Respondents non- compliance aforesaid dated 4<sup>th</sup> March 2021, in this regard.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">As deposed to in the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU-TARRAF sworn to on the 30<sup>th</sup> October 2020, the same in support of the application herein of an Originating Notice of Motion dated 30<sup>th</sup> October 2020,</span></span></span></span></span></p> </div> <p> </p> <div class="WordSection2"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection2"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Clearly the findings above, not only casts considerable doubts as to the veracity of the findings as contained in Exhibit <b>‘MAT 25’ </b>aforesaid and erodes the integrity and confidence placed in the expertise of the officials of the Ministry, it makes a complete nonsense of Exhibit <b>‘MAT 25’ </b>making the same a completely worthless and useless piece of document. It is obvious then that, if officials of the Ministry of Lands were to proceed to use the same questionable documents above which is stated above would have been the same documents submitted as regards the reports made against him by the said PHILIP NEVILLE and confirmed as is seen in Exhibit <b>‘MAT 24’ </b>to conclude the said report made against ANTHONY SAMU, the said officials of the Ministry of Lands would have been forced to come out with a conclusion similar to the one regarding the report made by ANTHONY SAMU against REV. DAVID CHAMBERS. This Court holds the view that by reason of all the circumstances outlined above, the said officials of the Ministry of Lands would definitely have been unable to declare ANTHONY SAMU the owner of the property at Sussex Village aforesaid, the subject matter of the application herein, the same which would have been contradictory to their first expert opinion given. It cannot be disputed therefore that because they knew that they would contradict themselves as regards their expert opinion as to the ownership of the property aforesaid, their failure to give any expert opinion on the request made by the Police regarding the complaint made by PHILIP NEVILLE against ANTHONY SAMU was deliberate, surreptitious and extremely unprofessional.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection2"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">This Court holds the view that, it is obvious from the above analysis that, undisputedly, a judicious claim for ownership of the property at Sussex Village, the subject matter of the application herein, would definitely not even be attempted by REV. DAVID CHAMBERS against the Plaintiff/Applicant herein, or any other contender who claims ownership of the property aforesaid, since such judicious claim would woefully fail even before it would have started. Irrefutable proof if this Courts view above aforesaid, could be found in the fact ' as incontrovertibly and substantially deposed in the affidavit of MUSTAPHA</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection2"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><shape filled="f" id="_x0000_s2053" stroked="f" style="position:absolute; left:0; text-align:left; margin-left:575px; margin-top:25px; width:79pt; height:74.15pt; z-index:-251655168" type="#_x0000_t202"><textbox inset="0,0,0,0"></textbox></shape></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="page:WordSection2"><wrap anchorx="margin" side="left" type="square"><span style="display: none;"> </span><span style="display: none;"> </span><shape filled="f" id="_x0000_s2054" stroked="f" style="position:absolute; left:0; text-align:left; margin-left:645px; margin-top:49px; width:27pt; height:52.9pt; z-index:-251654144" type="#_x0000_t202"><textbox inset="0,0,0,0"></textbox></shape></wrap></span></p> <table width="100%"><tbody><tr><td> <div> <p align="right" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:4px; text-align:right"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="color:black">that</span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:4px; text-align:right"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="color:black">1<sup>st</sup></span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:4px; text-align:right"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="color:black">the</span></span></p> </div> </td> </tr></tbody></table><p> <wrap anchorx="margin" side="left" type="square"></wrap><span style="display: none;"> </span><span style="display: none;"> </span><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="background:white"><span style="color:black">ABU TARRAF, that the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent on his several visits and encounters on the property aforesaid as outlined above, he accompanied by REV. DAVID CHAMBERS. Certainly, it cannot REV. DAVID CHAMBERS was seen in the company Defendant/Respondent in such circumstance aforesaid, to assist the </span></span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13pt;">GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE through the 1</span><sup style="color: black; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">st</sup><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13pt;"> Defendant/Respondent to compulsorily acquire or allegedly reclaim the property aforesaid as state land. Obviously, the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE has its own resources in this regard, such resources which certainly do not include REV. DAVID CHAMBERS. </span><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13pt; text-align: justify;">The presence of REV. DAVID CHAMBERS in the so-called compulsory acquisition of or the alleged reclaiming of the property aforesaid as State Land would be fully explained hereunder at some other stage. What is relevant here is the fact that if the above was an attempt to claim the ownership of the property aforesaid judiciously, REV DAVID CHAMBERS would not have been in the company of the 1</span><sup style="color: black; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; text-align: justify;">st</sup><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13pt; text-align: justify;"> Defendant/Respondent but rather in the Courts filing papers claiming for a Declaration of the title to the said property.</span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Further proof of this Court’s view that REV. DAVID CHAMBERS would not even attempt to claim ownership of the property in question judiciously is by reason of the fact as deposed to in the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU TARRAF sworn to on the 9<sup>th</sup> November 2020, the principal documents which the said REV. DAVID CHAMBERS would have used to judiciously bring a claim for Declaration of title to the property aforesaid had been found to be unauthentic. It is seen from Exhibit <b>‘MAT 22’ </b>annexed to the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU TARRAF, the same being a report of an investigation done by S.A. LUSANIE, a Licensed Surveyor, dated 21<sup>st</sup> April 2020, regarding ownership of the property aforesaid, it was uncontrovertibly determined that the survey plan for REV. DAVID CHAMBERS were all falsified. The determination aforesaid is confirmation of the report of the Ministry of Lands of their expert opinion on the request of the Police regarding the report made by ANTHONY SAMU against REV. DAVID CHAMBERS of Trespass on the property at Sussex which is the subject matter of the application herein as seen in Exhibit <b>‘MAT 25’ </b>annexed to the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU TARRAF. Uncontrovertibly the findings as contained in Exhibit <b>‘MAT 25’ </b>aforesaid, show that the beacon numbers found in all survey plans relied upon by the said REV. DAVID CHAMBERS when plotted falls at Hill Cut Road, Freetown at Off Railway Line Tengbeh Town - Wilberforce and at Aberdeen Ferry Road Murray Town. None of the beacon numbers fall on the land at Sussex aforesaid and some could not be found in the Record Books at the Ministry of Lands.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><shape filled="f" id="_x0000_s2056" stroked="f" style="position:absolute; left:0; text-align:left; margin-left:462px; margin-top:173px; width:66.05pt; height:37.6pt; z-index:251664384" type="#_x0000_t202"><textbox inset="0,0,0,0"><wrap anchorx="margin"></wrap></textbox></shape></span></span></span></p> <p><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">It was stated above that this Court will be remiss in its duty if it simply determines that the property at Sussex Village, being the subject matter of the application herein is not State Land but privately owned, by reason that further litigation is absolutely possible after it would have determined that the said property is not State Land. The above analysis is geared to show that in so far as ownership of the property aforesaid is concerned, ANTHONY SAMU and REV. DAVID CHAMBERS are persons who are potential claimants of ownership of the said property. However, the above analysis successfully clear that both ANTHONY SAMU and REV. DAVID</span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:125%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">lack what it takes to have them judiciously declared as title owners of the property aforesaid. This Court now turns its attention to the Plaintiff/Applicant. This Court finds that the statement that, ownership of the property aforesaid has been judiciously declared and confirmed in his favor as deposed to in the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU TARRAF sworn to on the 30<sup>th</sup> October 2020 cannot be true. This however does not mean that by the evidence submitted the said Plaintiff/Applicant is not entitled to a Declaration of title in respect of the said property. It is absolutely necessary that, this Court considers the evidence on the whole and determine whether or not the Plaintiff/Applicant is entitled to such a Declaration.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">This Court holds the view that the Plaintiff/Applicant’s contention that he has been judiciously declared owner of the said property is borne out of the fact that by a Judgement of the High Court dated 28<sup>th</sup> April 2016 as seen in Exhibit <b>‘MAT8’ </b>annexed to the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU TARRAF sworn to on the 30<sup>th</sup> October 2021, the Plaintiffs in the matter between <b>ALFRED P. JOHNSON (DECEASED) &amp; ROBERT JOHNSON </b>and <b>CHARLES HUMPAH, MOHAMED GHAZI R. FAIAD &amp; MOHAMED KAMEL WANSA, </b>cited above, unanimously, voluntarily, wholly and absolutely accepted and acknowledged that the Plaintiff/Applicant herein is the bona fide fee simple owner entitled to permanent ownership and possession of the property at Sussex, the subject matter of the application herein. It cannot be disputed that the said Judgement is an expression made by the Plaintiffs in the matter aforesaid, that they do not challenge the title of the Plaintiff/Applicant herein to the property at Sussex aforesaid. In the case between <b>SORIE TARAWALLY </b>and <b>SORIE KOROMA </b>S.C CIV. APP 7/2004, in the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone (unreported), A. <b>RENNER-THOMAS CJ, </b>stated that it is not sufficient for a Plaintiff’s claim for a declaration of title to land to be supported by uncontroverted evidence simpliciter, to entitle that Plaintiff to such a declaration. He continued by saying that in a long line of cases reviewed by the Supreme Court, it has been established that in an action for a declaration of title, the Plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his title and not on the weakness of the Defendant’s title. He stated that in other words, as stated by <b>WEBBER CJ </b>in delivering the Judgement of the West African Court of Appeal in the case between <b>KODOLINYE </b>and <b>ODU </b>(1935) 5 WACA 336 at p 337 - 338,</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="tab-stops:468.2pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><i><span style="color:black">‘The onus lies on the Plaintiff to satisfy the Court that he is entitled on the evidence brought by him to a declaration of title. The Plaintiff in this case must rely on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of </span></i></b></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="tab-stops:447.65pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><i><span style="color:black">Defendant’s case. If this onus is not discharged, the weakness of the </span></i></b></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:125%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><i><span style="color:black">Defendants case will not help him and the proper judgement is for the Defendants’...</span></i></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">The pertinent question then is <b>‘what must a Plaintiff who claims or a Defendant who counter claims for a Declaration of title prove to be entitled to the same’? </b>In the case between <b>SORIE TARAWALLI </b>and <b>SORIE KOROMA </b>cited above, <b>A. RENNER-THOMAS CJ, </b>in answer to the question aforesaid, drew a distinction between a documentary or paper title on the one hand and a possessory title on the other hand stating that for a person relying on a paper title, he must be able to trace his title to some grant by the Crown or the State. It cannot be disputed that the Plaintiff/Applicant is not relying on a documentary or paper title, in which case this Court will not require him to trace his title to some grant by the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE for it to make a Declaration of title to the property aforesaid in his favor.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">On the other hand and in the case between <b>SORIE TARAWALLI </b>and <b>SORIE KOROMA </b>cited above <b>A. RENNER-THOMAS CJ </b>stated that, a Plaintiff who relies on the fact of possession by himself or his predecessors in title must prove more than just mere possession to be entitled to a declaration of title. He must prove that he has a better title not only against the Defendant but that there is no other person having a better title than himself. In answer to his question, <b>‘How then can he prove this’? A. RENNER-THOMAS CJ </b>stated that, he can do this by showing that the title of the true owner has been extinguished in his favor by the combined effect of adverse possession and the limitation statute. Section 5(3) of the <b>STATUTE OF LIMITATION ACT 1961 </b>provides as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:120%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><i><span style="color:black">’No action shall be brought by any other person to recover any land after the expiration of Twelve (12) years from the date on which the right of action accrued to him or if it first accrued to some person through who he claims to that person’.</span></i></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">In the case between <b>SORIE TARAWALLI </b>and <b>SORIE KOROMA </b>cited above, <b>A. RENNER-THOMAS CJ </b>stated that, the nature of the root of possessory title is thus explained by <b>MEGARRY </b>and <b>WADE </b>at page 1004 in the 4<sup>th</sup> Edition of <b>THE LAW OF REAL PROPERTY </b>as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:120%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><i><span style="color:black">‘Limitation is thus not per se a mode of transferring property from one person to another. But it may operate as such when combine with the principle that adverse possession gives a title. If S (squatted) wrongfully takes possession of land belonging to O (owner), O immediately acquires </span></i></b></span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><i><span style="color:black">a right of action against S for recovery of land. If O takes no action in Twelve (12) years (normally) his right of action becomes barred and his title extinguished by limitation. S can no longer be disturbed by O and as against all the world except someone having a better legal right to possession’.</span></i></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:23px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">In his statement of case dated 9<sup>th</sup> November 2020, submitted to this Court for and on behalf of the Plaintiff/Applicant, P. LAMBERT ESQ. submitted at paragraph 18, page 6 of the same that this Court will note and it so notes that the predecessors in title of GHAZI R. FAIAD, the immediate predecessor in title to the property at Sussex which is the subject matter of the application herein, do not have any documentary title for the property which they sold to him and that their title is possessory. Notwithstanding his submission aforesaid, this Court holds the view that it would be absolutely incorrect to say that the Plaintiff/Applicant herein or his predecessors in title relies on the fact of possession, by reason that, from the evidence adduced herein in its entirety, it is conclusive of the fact that the property at Sussex, the subject matter of the application herein was not acquired by neither the Plaintiff/Applicant nor his predecessors in title by adverse possession, in which case, the requirement that the Plaintiff/Applicant must show that the title of the true owner has been extinguished in his favor by the combined effect of adverse possession and Section 5(3) of the <b>STATUTE OF LIMITATION ACT 1961 </b>above, would be completely unnecessary. All that the Plaintiff/Applicant would be required to show in this case, is by tracing his title to the property aforesaid, to the true owner.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">It is seen from ‘Exhibits <b>MAT 29, 30, 31 </b>and <b>32’, </b>annexed to the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU TARRAF sworn to on the 9<sup>th</sup> November 2020, that MOHAMED GHAZI FAIAD, the Plaintiff/Applicant’s immediate predecessor in title to the property at Sussex Village, subject matter of the application herein, purchased part of the said property from THEOPHILUS MASON and the rest from JANET JOHNSON. As seen from Exhibit <b>‘MAT 32’ </b>aforesaid, the portion of the said property which THEOPHILUS MASON sold to MOHAMED GHAZI FAIAD was conveyed to him, the said THEOPHILUS MASON by way of a Deed of Gift by JANET JOHNSON on the 2<sup>nd</sup> March 1989, the said THEOPHILUS MASON who in turn conveyed the same to MOHAMED GHAZI FAIAD on the 6<sup>th</sup> March 1989 as seen from Exhibit <b>‘MAT 29’ </b>supplemental to which is a Conveyance dated the 31<sup>st</sup> October 1990, as seen in Exhibit ‘MAT30 of the said property sold to MOHAMED GHAZI FAIAD was <b>conveyed by Janet</b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">MASON on the 11<sup>th</sup> July 1990 as seen in Exhibit <b>‘MAT 31’  </b>aforesaid it cannot </span></span><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">be disputed that the original owner of the entire property aforesaid was JANET JOHNSON who conveyed parts of it to THEOPHILUS MASON byway of a Deed of. Gift on the 2<sup>nd</sup> March 1989 as seen in Exhibit <b>‘MAT 32’ </b>aforesaid and conveyed the rest to GHAZI R. FAIAD on the 11<sup>th</sup> July 1989 as seen in Exhibit <b>‘MAT 31’. </b>In both Exhibits <b>‘MAT 31’ </b>and <b>‘MAT 32’, </b>parts of the recitals state that JANET JOHNSON as at the 11<sup>th</sup> July 1989 and the 2<sup>nd</sup> March 1989 respectively, had been seized of or otherwise well and sufficiently entitled to the property at Sussex aforesaid, which is the subject matter of the application herein having been in full, free undisturbed and uninterrupted possession thereof for a period of well over forty (40) years.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">There is absolutely no evidence disputing the fact that the said JANET JOHNSON had been in possession of the said property for over forty (40) years prior to the 11<sup>th</sup> July 1989. There is further, absolutely no evidence adduced showing that her possession thereof was interrupted by anyone during this period. It also cannot be disputed that, in view of the circumstances aforesaid, JANET JOHNSON can be considered the <b>‘TRUE OWNER’ </b>of the property aforesaid, having undisputedly shown long and uninterrupted possession of the same, notwithstanding the fact that she had no documents of title in respect of the said property. Notwithstanding the fact, that the Plaintiff/Applicant would successfully be able to trace his title to the property aforesaid, to the true owner of the same, he would still have to show how he can be declared the owner of the said property which is the subject matter of the application herein, when the true owner of the said property has long and uninterrupted possession but had no documents of title. In this regard, there is yet one more situation existing in the applicable law in Sierra Leone where title to land in the Western Area can be acquired by long possession without any documents of title to show for such long possession. The following comment by <b>LIVESEY-LUKE CJ </b>in the course of his Judgement in the case between <b>SEYMOR WILSON </b>and <b>MUSA ABESS </b>cited above is appropriate in this regard:</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:449.3pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><i><span style="color:black">"... It is a matter of common knowledge that most of the lands in the Western Area outside the city of Freetown are based on possessory title and most of them are not covered by any title deeds. That situation is the result of the history of land holding established in the Western Area about two centuries ago. The system which has been in operation in the Western Area since founding of the colony (now Western Area) is that land passes within the same family from one generation to another, in many cases without the existence off any document of title. Indeed the court in Sierra </span></i></b></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><i><span style="color:black">Leone have on innumerable occasion decided in favor  of the owner of</span></i><span style="color:black"> a </span></b></span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><i><span style="color:black">possessory title without documents of titles, as against the holders of registered Conveyances’.</span></i></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:25px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">In the 1<sup>st</sup> Edition of <b>LAND TENURE IN SIERRA LEONE </b>by ADE RENNER- <b>THOMAS on ‘LONG POSSESSION AND THE ACQUISITION OF TITLE TO LAND IN THE WESTERN AREA’ </b>under the rubric <b>‘Introduction’ </b>at paragraph 5.4.1, page 126, it is stipulated that, these very revealing words of LIVESEY- <b>LUKE CJ </b>above, confirm the fact that in the Western Area of Sierra Leone, judicial recognition has long been given to evidence of possession as a means of establishing title to land in this part of the country. It cannot be disputed that the property which is the subject matter of the application herein is situated at Sussex Village in the Western Area of Sierra Leone outside the city of Freetown. It cannot be disputed further that the Plaintiff/Applicant purchased the said property from GHAZI RACHED FAIAD who in turn bought the same from JANET JOHNSON and THEOPHILUS MASON. It cannot be disputed also that before executing a Deed of Gift in favor of her son THEOPHILUS MASON who in turn executed a Conveyance in favor of the said GHAZI RACHED FAIAD and before executing a Conveyance in favor of the said GHAZI RACHED FAIAD, JANET JOHNSON had no document of title to the property aforesaid. It cannot be disputed that JANET JOHNSON was a resident of Sussex Village and had been, in possession of the said property for upwards of forty (40) years prior to 1989. It cannot be disputed further that, the said JANET JOHNSON had been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the same during this period. It cannot be disputed also that that there is no evidence contradicting the fact that prior to JANET JOHONSON obtaining possession of the said property, it was her parents or other relatives who were in possession of the same. These undisputed facts being the case and in line with the comments made by <b>LIVESEY-LUKE CJ </b>in the case between <b>SEYMOUR WILSON </b>and <b>MUSA ABESS </b>cited above, it is apparent that, the Court would in the circumstance declare ownership of the property aforesaid in favor of the Plaintiff/Applicant whose predecessors-in-title had possessory title to the said property without documents of title of any kind. In the case between MOHAMED GHAZI R. <b>FAIAD &amp; ANOTHER and the ATTORNEY GENERAL AND MINISTER OF JUSTICE &amp; ANOTHER </b>S.C 6/2009 in the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone (unreported), <b>G.B SEMAGA-JANNEH JSC </b>had this to say: <b><i>’the Plaintiff’s title is traced through a chain of conveyance, about four (4) in number spanning from the 29<sup>th</sup> April 1981 to the 28<sup>th</sup> Februju^1997. The Plaintiffs had several predecessors-in-title and have b^rrTng5os^ssion in excess of forty (40) years. During the period the land completely</i></b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><i><span style="color:black">developed with structures and chalets and the premises for a considerable period of time was operated as a hotel paying outgoings, rates and taxes without let or hindrance or by anyone until the advent of the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant in the scene. Prior to the Conveyance of the suit land to CORNELIUS AUGUSTINE HARDING, the suit land was in the possession of the villages of Tokeh in the Western Region. It is a historical fact that such lands were and continued, in the possession of the villages and used by village family units or village individuals or communally for residence, farming, commence etc. It is irrelevant for the discourse on possession or ownership, whether the suit land is labelled ‘community land’. In my view it is the historical realities that mattered. I am therefore of the considered opinion that the villagers of Tokeh, by their representatives had title which they properly passed unto HON. MR. JUSTICE CONELIUS AUGUSTINE HARDING’.</span></i></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">By reason of the above, the Plaintiffs in the case aforesaid, were declared the fee simple owners of the suit land aforesaid, by the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone. Likewise in the matter herein, this Court holds the view that the Plaintiff/Applicant is entitled to be declared the fee simple owner of the property at Peninsula Road, Sussex in the Western Area of Sierra Leone, delineated on survey plan dated 27<sup>th</sup> July 1990 and numbered LS 1737/90, the same being a certified true copy of survey plan numbered LS 1631/90, by this Court. Consequently in answer to the question asked of this Court, whether the property aforesaid is ‘STATE LAND’ in accordance with the definition of Section 2 of the STATE LANDS ACT 1960 or any other legislation in Sierra Leone, this Court emphatically states that the said property is not ‘STATE LAND’ and is privately owned by MOHAMED KAMEL WANZA the Plaintiff/Applicant herein. Having answered the above question, this Court now turns i:s attention to answering the question whether the entering upon the Plaintiff/Applicant’s property as determined aforesaid, by the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants/Respondents with a group of armed men, chasing the workers and security guards employed by the said Plaintiff/Applicant and putting up a sign board with the inscription ‘THIS LAND IS STATE LAND’ and whether the acquisition aforesaid, be it purported or not and the taking of possession of all that property aforesaid, is in accordance with the process of compulsory acquisition of property by the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE as provided under Section 21 of the <b>CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE 1231 </b>and or in compliance with the <b>PUBLIC LANDS ACT, CHAPTER 116 of the LAWS OF SIERRA LEONE 1960 </b>as amended.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:25px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:125%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">It should be pointed out at the very onset that, the uncontroverted conduct of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent outlined above, cannot be a situation where the same is likened to him reclaiming State Land. It has been determined above that since upwards of forty (40) years before 1989 when possession of the said property was in the hands of JANET JOHNSON and the villagers of Sussex Village, the same had always been privately owned. It cannot be disputed that all throughout the said period, not once can it be said that, it has been shown that it was at some point in time to date become State Land, which the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent now seeks to reclaim. In this regard, it would be absolutely correct to say, that the conduct of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent, amounts to a situation where land which has always being privately owned, is now sought by the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent to be converted to ‘STATE LAND’. It cannot be disputed that the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent can only do this in one of several ways including but not limited to Transferring of Defence Lands from private possession to State possession, the State reclaiming Forest Reserves, the State reclaiming Ex Railway lands in the colony, the State’s acquisition of lands by Conveyance through negotiation, the State reclaiming unoccupied lands, the State reclaiming Kroo settlements and Lumpa reservations, Confiscating lands to the State and by compulsory acquisition by the State.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:25px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:120%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Clearly the conduct of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent cannot be a situation likened to him demanding the transfer <i>of</i> Defence lands or a situation likened to him reclaiming Forest Reserves or reclaiming Ex Railway lands in the colony or reclaiming unoccupied lands or reclaiming Kroo settlements and Lumpa reservation lands, by reason that as stated above, the property at Sussex, which is the subject matter of the application herein has always been occupied and for upwards of forty (40) years prior to 1989 been private property and not Defence lands or Forest Reserves or Ex Railway lands in the colony or unoccupied lands or Kroo Settlements and Lumpa reservation lands.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:25px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="tab-stops:356.05pt 472.85pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">The conduct of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent cannot further be a situation likened to him seeking to acquire the said property by Conveyance from the Plaintiff/Applicant to the State through negotiation, simply by reason that there is absolutely no evidence of any negotiations of the sale of the said property by the said Plaintiff/Applicant to the State. Consequently, the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent’s conduct can only be likened to a situation where he seeks to confiscate lands to the State or seeks to compulsorily acquire lands to the State. The relevant consideration in this regard is whether either of what the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent sought aforesaid was done with the relevant and applicable law. </span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">This Court upholds the submission of P. LAMBERT ESQ. of Counsel for the Plaintiff/Applicant, as contained in his statement of case dated 9<sup>th</sup> November 2020 at page 4, paragraph 12, that what the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent sought to do, was to expropriate the property aforesaid, of the Plaintiff/Applicant without the enabling legislation authorizing him to do so. This Court refers to the period 1992 to 1996 when the State of Sierra Leone was governed by the NATIONAL PROVISIONAL RULING COUNCIL (NPRC), a military Regine, governing by virtue of the NPRC PROCLAMATION 1992, which suspended in parts, the <b>CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE 1991, </b>enabling it therefore and authorized to enact laws which of necessity took away rights guaranteed by the said <b>CONSTITUTION. </b>The NPRC at time and in order to expropriate or confiscate properties belonging to certain persons enacted the <b>NPRC DECREE NO. 2 OF 1994 </b>and the <b>NPRC (EXPROPRIATION OF SPECIFIED COMPANIES) 1994, </b>to enable them to expropriate or confiscate properties belonging to certain persons. Section 3 and Section 2 of the above decrees respectively enabled the NPRC to terminate the leasehold agreements entered into between the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE and ANTOINE A.D YAZBECK in respect of the Hotels set out in the 2<sup>nd</sup> Schedule of the Decree aforesaid and enabled the NPRC to expropriate the shares of shareholders in Five (5) companies listed in the second schedule to the said Decree. On the return to democratic governance in Sierra Leone on the 2<sup>nd</sup> April 1996, the Decrees aforesaid, were expressly repealed by Section 1 and its First schedule of the <b>NPRC (REPEAL AND MODIFICATION) ACT 1996. </b>As such the expropriation and confiscation aforesaid is no longer law in Sierra Leone. Consequently, if it is the case that, by the conduct of the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent herein amounted to him expropriating or confiscating the property of the Plaintiff/Applicant, then there is no law in Sierra Leone enabling and or authorizing him to do so.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:361.45pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">It has been conclusively determined above that, the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent entered the Plaintiff/Applicant’s property aforesaid with a group of armed men, chasing the workers and security guards employed by the said Plaintiff/Applicant out of the said property and putting up a sign board with the inscription <b>‘THIS IS STATE LAND’ </b>taking away the keys to the main gate of the said property. This Court seeks to determine whether or not the acts of the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent aforesaid, are in accordance with the process of compulsory acquisition of property by the GOVERNMENT OF SI£RUAJ^ONE as provided by Section 21(1) of the CCMS7ITUTION OF the same which provides as follows:  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:25px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><i><span style="color:black">‘No property of any description shall be compulsorily taken possession of and no interest in or right over property of any description shall be compulsorily acquired, except where the taking of possession or acquisition is necessary in the interests of defense, public safety, public order, public morality, public health, town and country planning, the development or utilization of any property in such a manner as to promote the public benefit or the public welfare of citizens of Sierra Leone and the necessity therefore is such as to afford reasonable Justification for the causing of any hardship that may result to any person having any interest in or right over the property and provisions is made by law applicable to that taking of possession or acquisition for the prompt payment of adequate compensation and securing to any person having an interest in or right over the property, a right of access to a Court or other impartial and independent authority for the determination of his interest or right, the legality of the taking of possession or acquisition of the property, interest or right and the amount of any compensation to which he is entitled and for the purpose of obtaining prompt payment of that compensation’.</span></i></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:25px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Clearly, the evidence in its entirety does not show that the conduct of the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent as outlined above in detail and which said conduct, seems to be an attempt made by the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent that would amount to the compulsory taking over of possession and the interest in the property at Sussex, the subject matter of the application herein, compulsorily acquired, the compulsory taking over of possession and the compulsory acquisition aforesaid, of the interest in the property aforesaid, was necessary in the interest of Defense, public safety, public order, public morality, public health, town and country planning, the development or utilization of any property in such a manner as to promote the public benefit or public welfare of citizens of Sierra Leone. It is the case further that, the evidence adduced in its entirety does not show that by the conduct of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent aforesaid, the need for such conduct by the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent is such as to afford reasonable justification for the causing of any hardship that resulted to the Plaintiff/Applicant herein.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:25px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">It is also the case that, the evidence adduced in its entirety does not show that provision is made by law applicable to the taking of possession and acquisition aforesaid, for the prompt payment of adequate compensation ” the Plaintiff/Applicant a right of access to the Court for the de;</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">interest or right, the legality of the taking of possession or acquisition of the interest or right in the property aforesaid and the amount of any compensation to which the Plaintiff/Applicant is entitled to and for the purpose of obtaining prompt payment of that compensation. The following, <b>IN RE PUBLIC ORDINANCE and IN RE FOURAH BAY ROAD BURNT OUTREACH </b>(1950- 56) ALR SL 390 HC and <b>IN THE MATTER OF THE RAILWAY ORDINANCE (CAP 198) and IN THE MATTER OF CERTAIN LANDS SITUATE AT ROKEL </b>(1957-60) ALR SL 30 are cases in our jurisprudence dealing with the right of access to the Court for determination of the amount of any compensation and prompt payment of it when private land is compulsorily taken possession of and interests in it compulsorily acquired. The case between <b>JOHN AKAR &amp; ANOTHER </b>and <b>ATTORNEY GENERAL </b>(1950-56) ALR SL 211 HC, was an application by motion for the determination by the Court of the value of land acquired by the Colonial Government through its competent officer, the Director of Surveys and Lands under the <b>PUBLIC LANDS ORDINANCE CHAPTER </b>198 and the compensation to be paid to the claimants thereof. Having found as a fact that, the acreage of the land in question being Twenty Three Point Five Nine (23.59) acres, the Director of Surveys and Lands offering the sum of Two Hundred and Forty Two Pounds, Eighteen Shillings and Six Pence (£242.18s.6p) and the claimants have submitted a claim totaling Thirty Six Thousand, Nine Hundred and Eighty Six Pounds, Four Shillings and Eight Pence (£36,986.14s.8d), <b>LUKE Ag J, </b>in making a determination thought it necessary to go very carefully into the principles which have been established in ascertaining and fixing the claims for properties acquired compulsorily as required by the <b>PUBLIC LANDS ORDINANCE </b>and in this light considered a number of authorities on this question of compensation on compulsory purchase. <b>LUKE Ag. J </b>determined the total figure of compensation to be One Thousand, Three Hundred and Thirty Eight Pounds, Three Shillings and Six Pence (£1,338.3s.6d).</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">It should be pointed out, that the reference made to the decided cases above does not in any way mean that, the situation at hand involving the Plaintiff/Applicant herein and the conduct aforesaid, of the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent calls for the prompt payment of compensation to the Plaintiff/Applicant. In the cases referred to above, there is no doubt that the taking of possession or acquisition of the interest in the pieces or parcels of land involved was necessary by reason of one or more of the factors as outlined in Section 21(1) of the <b>CONSTITUTION </b>aforesaid. All what the cases referred  above show is the fact that the law makes provision applicable the taking<b> </b>possession or acquisition for the prompt payment of adequate compensation </span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:8.5pt"><span style="tab-stops:lined 41.2pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Courier New&quot;"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:13.0pt"><span style="color:black">and securing a right of access to a Court for the determination of a claimant’s interest or right, the legality of the taking of possession or acquisition of the piece or parcel of land involved and the amount of compensation which the claimants are entitled to. The determination of these factors is clearly unnecessary for the purpose of the application herein as the compulsory taking of possession or acquisition of the interest in the property at Sussex, the subject matter of the application herein, be it purported or not, failed the test of necessity in accordance with one or more of the factors outlined in Section 21(1) of the <b>CONSTITUTION </b>aforesaid.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">This Court holds the view that, the entering upon the property aforesaid, by the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent with a group of armed men, chasing the workers and security guards employed by the said Plaintiff/Applicant and putting up a sign board with the inscription ‘THIS IS STATE LAND’ and the purported taking possession of and acquisition of the interest of the Plaintiff/Applicant in the said property was not in accordance with and was a clear breach of the process of compulsorily acquisition of property by the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE as provided under Section 21 of the <b>CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE 1991. </b>This being the case, the conduct of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent was not in compliance with and was a clear breach of the <b>PUBLIC LANDS ACT, CHAPTER 116 of the LAWS OF SIERRA LEONE, </b>which said legislation makes provision for the acquisition, by the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE of lands for public purposes after adequate compensation has been paid for such lands. Clearly, it has not been shown that the acquisition aforesaid, of the property aforesaid, be it purported or not, was done for public purposes and done after adequate compensation had been paid to the Plaintiff/Applicant for the said property.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">It cannot be disputed that the conduct aforesaid, of the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent amounts to the depriving of the Plaintiff/Applicant’s use and enjoyment of the property at Sussex, the subject matter of the application herein. This Court holds the view that the said conduct of the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent amounts to a clear breach of Section 22 of the <b>CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE 1991 </b>which provides in part as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><i><span style="color:black">‘Except with his own consent, no person shall be subjected to the entry by others on his premises, such provision which shall not be sanctioned by any law save that such law shall not be inconsistent with or in contravention of the above provision to the extent that the in question makes provision that is reasonably required for certain purposes outlined in Section 22 (2) of the said CONSTITUTION except that the thing done under the authority thereof is shown not to be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society'.</span></i></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">It is clear that the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent entered the property at Sussex, the subject matter of the application herein, forcefully and without the consent of the Plaintiff/Applicant. There is not an iota of evidence that the forcible entry into the property aforesaid by the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent was done in the interest of defense, public safety, public order, public morality, public health, town and country planning or the development or utilization of the said property in such a manner so as to promote the public health or to enable anybody corporate established directly by any law or any department of the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE or any land authority to enter on the property of the Plaintiff/Applicant aforesaid, in order to carry out work in connection with the said property or installation which is lawfully on the said property and which belongs to that body corporate or to the GOVERNMEMT OF SIERRA LEONE or to that authority as the case may be or for the purpose of protecting the rights and freedom of other persons or for the purpose of executing a judgement or order of a Court or for the purpose of affording such special care and assistance as are necessary for the health, safety, development and wellbeing of women, children and young persons, the aged and the handicapped. Since it was not shown that the forcible entry by the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent into the property aforesaid, was done in accordance with some law reasonably required for the purposes aforesaid, it would not be necessary to show that such law is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">In answer to the questions asked of this Court, it has been determined above that, the property situate, lying and being at Peninsula Road, Sussex in the Western Area of Sierra Leone, more particularly described and delineated on survey plan numbered LS 1631/90, the subject matter of the application herein is not State Land. It has been determined further that the conduct of the 1<sup>st</sup></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Defendant/Respondent is not in accordance with the process of compulsory acquisition of property by the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE and the acquisition aforesaid, be it purported or not and the taking of possession of all that property aforesaid, is not in compliance with Section 21 of the <b>CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE </b>1991 and or in compliance with the</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><span style="color:black">PUBLIC LANDS ACT CHAPTER 116 </span></b><span style="color:black">OF THE <b>LAWS OF SIERRA LEONE</b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><span style="color:black">1960 </span></b><span style="color:black">as amended. It has also been determined above that the conduct of the </span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent amounts to depriving  the Plaintiff /applicant of the<b> </b></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:75%"><span style="tab-stops:25.9pt lined 65.9pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">use and enjoyment of his property aforesaid, the said conduct of the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent which also amounts to a clear breach of Section 22 of the <b>CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE 1991.</b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">The Plaintiff/Applicant has prayed that this Court makes certain Declarations and grant certain Orders in the event that the answers to the first three questions asked are in the negative and the answer to the last question asked is in the affirmative. Indeed, the answers to the first three questions asked are in the negative and the answer to the last question asked is in the affirmative, which said answers should pave the way for the making of the Declarations and the grant of the Orders sought. It cannot be disputed that, the making of the Declarations and the grant of the Orders sought by the Plaintiff/Applicant as prayed for would be against all Three (3} Defendants/Respondents. It could be seen however, that from the answers given to the questions asked for, as posed by the Plaintiff/Applicant, both the 2<sup>nd</sup> and the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants/Respondents do not seem to have been implicated in so far as the conduct of the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent is concerned. By reason of the fact that, this Court would not be inclined to make any Declaration and grant Orders against both the 2<sup>nd</sup> and the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants/Respondents, it would have to justify this.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">The 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant/Respondent is the Director of Surveys and Lands in the Ministry of Lands. His office was established by the <b>SURVEYS ACT CHAPTER 128 of the LAWS OF SIERRA LEONE 1960 </b>as amended by <b>ACT NO. 14 </b>of <b>1960, </b>which said amendment conferred on him, the exclusive right to sign and authorize survey plans. The 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant/Respondent’s office is a public office, subject to the code of conduct issued by the PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION governing the manner in which all public officers carry out their duties. He is not authorized to depart from the parameters laid down in that code. As has been stated above, there is no evidence whatsoever showing that the 2<sup>nd </sup>Defendant/Respondent entered the Plaintiff/Applicant’s property aforesaid, together with the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent. This being the case, it cannot be said that, he deprived the Plaintiff/Applicant of the use and enjoyment of his property, caused a breach of the peace in terms of the PUBLIC ORDER ACT <b>1965 </b>as amended and the state of Emergency which now exists in Sierra Leone, violently contravened his oath of office taken by him and it cannot be said that his actions, if any, is unconstitutional and in contravention of Sections 21 and 22 of the <b>CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA </b>LEONE <b>1991 </b>and its related processes. Undisputedly, it was his predecessor-in-office who signed the survey plan attached to the Plaintiff/Applicant’s Deed of Title to his property aforesaid as required of his office according to law. However, there is absolutely no evidence </span></span></span></span></span><span style="page:WordSection3"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">that he has departed from the parameters laid down in his code of conduct issued by the PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and compromised the actions of his predecessor-in-office, regarding the survey plan attached to the Plaintiff/Applicant’s Deed of Title. There is no evidence shown that the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent ordered him to breach that code of Conduct which said Order(s) the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant/Respondent complied with.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div class="WordSection3"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection3"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">In so far as the complicity of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant/Respondent, in the conduct of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent is concerned, an analysis of Exhibits ‘MAT 10’, <b>‘MAT 13’ </b>and <b>‘MAT 18’ </b>annexed to the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU TARRAF sworn to on the 30<sup>th</sup> October 2020, will determine the issue aforesaid. The 3<sup>rd </sup>Defendant/Respondent had made it absolutely and abundantly clear to the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent that the property, which is the subject matter of the application herein was not State Land neither was it the property of the Ministry of Lands, the said property which was privately owned by the Plaintiff/Applicant. The 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant/Respondent had made it absolutely and abundantly clear to the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent that, entering the property aforesaid, with REV. DAVID CHAMBERS and several thugs apparently to help REV. DAVID CHAMBERS claim ownership of the property aforesaid, was unconstitutional and had advised, that it was not his duty but the Courts to declare who the owner of the property aforesaid is. The 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant/Respondent had made it absolutely and abundantly clear to the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent that, his conduct aforesaid was done in the guise of acting for and on behalf of the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE. The 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant/Respondent had unequivocally advised the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent to forthwith refrain from his conduct and show respect to the laws of the land.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection3"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">This Court holds the view that the above analysis could be safely interpreted to mean the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant/Respondent saying to the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent that, any further conduct in breach of the advise given to him would be considered as him conducting himself personally and not conducting himself for and on behalf of the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE. In this regard, it cannot be said that the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant/Respondent together with the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent, forcibly and forcefully and without lawful excuse or authority laid hold of, and unlawfully seized and laid claim to all that piece of parcel of land situate, lying and being at Peninsula Road, Sussex in the Western Area of Sierra Leone, the subject matter of the application herein; that it cannot be said that his actions, if any, is unconstitutional and in contravention of Sections 21 and 22 of the CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE 1991 and its </span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="page:WordSection4"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">related processes and it cannot be said that the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant/Respondent should be held responsible for the conduct of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div class="WordSection4"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection4"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Even though it can be declared that, the acts of violence, the use of force perpetrated and utilized by the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent with the aid and assistance of armed personnel at the Plaintiff/Applicant’s property aforesaid, in the full view of onlookers, amounts to a breach of the peace in terms o* the <b>PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1965 </b>as amended and that the same amounts to contravention of the oath taken by the said 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent on the occasion of his being sworn in as a Minister with Cabinet rank by His Excellency, the President of Sierra Leone, which oath is contained in the Third Schedule to the CONSTITUTION aforesaid, specifically swearing that he will support, <b>uphold and maintain the CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE as </b>by law <b>established, so help me God’, </b>it cannot be declared that the acts of the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent amounts to a breach of the State of Emergency which now exists in Sierra Leone, primarily because there is absolutely no evidence adduced herein, showing the variety of conducts would amounts to a breach of the State of Emergency which now exists in Sierra Leone and which would enable this Court to determine whether the conduct of the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent amounts to a breach of the State of Emergency aforesaid.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection4"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:120%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">The Plaintiff/Applicant has claimed for a Declaration that the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent, grossly contravened the provisions of Section 62 of the <b>CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE 1991, </b>the same which provides thus:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection4"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:120%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><i><span style="color:black">‘Where any Minister has been charged with responsibility for any department of GOVERNMENT, he shall exercise general direction and control over that department and subject to such direction and control, the department shall be under the supervision of a Permanent Secretary, whose office shall be a public office’.</span></i></b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection4"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">It cannot be disputed that, the provision above stipulates that, the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent shall exercise general direction and control over the Ministry of Lands, Housing and Country Planning and that the day to day supervision of the Ministry by the Permanent Secretary is subject to the general direction and control over the Ministry which the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent shall exercise. In this regard, if the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent himself, together-with others authorized by him, chooses to embark on an enterprise;</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:23px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection4"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">with armed personnel to a piece or parcel of land owned by a private individual</span></span><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black"> namely the Plaintiff/Applicant herein, to forcibly seize and take control of the said piece or parcel of land without lawful authority thereby, it cannot be said that the same is outside the remit of his office as he is the one who shall exercise general direction and control over the Ministry of Lands, Housing and Country Planning. Consequently it cannot be said that he unlawfully wrestled away the powers conferred on the Permanent Secretary, in the Ministry of Lands to supervise the daily and physical activities of the said Ministry. Moreover it cannot be said that the activity aforesaid, embarked on by the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent is part of the daily and physical activities of the said Ministry.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection4"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Even though it can be declared that, the unlawful actions and declarations of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent in relation to the Plaintiff/Applicant’s ownership of the property at Sussex, subject matter of the application herein, are against public policy and that the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent’s conduct, words and declarations during his violent attacks on the property of the Plaintiff/Applicant aforesaid, are not authorized or sanctioned by any law in force in Sierra Leone, this Court cannot declare that such actions will encourage the ordinary voting public to believe that, it is permissible conduct for an individual without the support of the law or an order of the Court, to violently take possession of another person’s land, primarily because the making of such a declaration would be tantamount to saying that Sierra Leone is a lawless society without any respect for the Rule of Law, in that, for it to act in the manner aforesaid, all what the ordinary voting public would wait for is encouragement from a state actor who takes the law into his own hands, for them to also do likewise. It is for this same reason why this Court cannot declare that, the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent’s conduct, actions, words and declarations during his violent attacks on the said property of the Plaintiff/Applicant, if not stopped, may result in eternal conflicts between law abiding and law-breaking citizens of this peaceful country. Obviously, what can be said in this regard is that, law abiding citizens are encouraged to institute actions in Court against law-breaking citizens in respect of incidents similar to the one herein since it is the duty of the Courts to resolve conflicts between law abiding and law-breaking citizens of this peaceful country, implementation of the same which should and would discourage the ordinary voting public to believe that, it is permissible conduct for an individual without the support of the law or an order of the Court, to violently take possession of another person’s land and law abiding and law­breaking citizens resolving conflicts between them by themselves.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <div style="border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding:0in 0in 0in 0in; margin-right:59px"> <p class="Bodytext30" style="border:none; padding:0in; text-align:right"><span style="page:WordSection4"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">The Plaintiff/Applicant has prayed for an order that, Damages be paid by the 1<sup>st </sup>and the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants/Respondents for trespass on the property at Sussex, the subject matter of the application herein and the contravention of the Plaintiff/Applicants’ fundamental right provided for by Section 21 of the <b>CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE 1991. </b>It has been conclusively determined above that, the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant/Respondent cannot be held liable for the conduct of 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent by reason that there is no evidence adduced herein, of the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant/Respondent’s participation in implementing the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent’s conduct. The pertinent question that’s follows is <b>‘Does this pave the way for this Court to order the </b>1<sup>st </sup><b>Defendant/Respondent to pay damages, himself being the only person who perpetrated the acts aforesaid in breach of Section 21 of the CONSTITUTION aforesaid’? </b>It should be pointed out that in so far as the invoking of Section 21 aforesaid, is concerned, it is only the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE that can compulsorily take possession of property and interest or right over such property acquired from a citizen and it is only them who can be named Defendants in an action for breach of Section 21 aforesaid.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </div> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection4"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Justification for the proposition aforesaid can be found from the very contents of Section 21 of the <b>CONSTITUTION </b>aforesaid. Certainly, in a bid to justify the taking of possession and the acquiring of interest or right over property, it would not be a private citizen acting alone on his own behalf that would have to declare, that it is in the interest of defense, public safety, public order, public morality, public health, town and country planning, the development or utilization of the property in such manner as to promote the public benefit or the public welfare of citizens of Sierra Leone. It is the case further that, it cannot be a private citizen that would have to provide reasonable justification balancing the need for the taking of possession and the acquiring of interests or rights over the property and any hardship that may result to any person having an interest or right over the said property. It is the case also that it cannot be a private citizen that would have to make provision in law applicable to the taking of possession or acquisition for the prompt payment of adequate compensation and securing to any person having an interest in or right over the property, a right of access to a Court or other independent authority for the determination of that persons’ interest or right, the legality of the taking of possession or acquisition of the property, interest or right and the amount of any compensation to which that person is entitled to and for the purpose of obtaining prompt compensation. Clearly and from the above, it is state actors from all three arms of the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE, the Executive, </span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="page:WordSection4"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">the Judiciary that would have to be involved in justifying that the conditions above, necessary for the successful compulsorily taking over possession of property and interest or right over such property are fully complied with.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection4"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">It cannot be disputed that all Three(3) Defendants/Respondents are the state actors named in defense of the Plaintiff/Applicants’ claim that Section 21 of the <b>CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE 1991 </b>was breached. It is obvious, that the Plaintiff/Applicant claim could be equated to him saying that all Three (3) Defendants/Respondent were acting in concert for and on behalf of the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE. However, this Court has determined above that, in so far as the breach of Section 21 aforesaid, is concerned, the 2<sup>nd </sup>and the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants/Respondent were not in concert with the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent and cannot in the circumstance be said to be acting for and on behalf of the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE in this regard. It has been established above that there is absolutely no evidence brought forward linking the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant/Respondent with the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent or the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant/Respondent complying with instructions from the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent, such instructions being in breach of Section 21 of the <b>CONSTITUTION </b>aforesaid. It has been established further that the 3<sup>rd </sup>Defendant/Respondent as the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice of Sierra Leone and acting for and on behalf of the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE, severally did all he could, to get the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent to restrain himself from proceeding with his actions, in breach of section 21 aforesaid, to no avail in the circumstance. Both the 2<sup>nd</sup> and the 3<sup>rd </sup>Defendants/Respondent cannot be held liable to pay Damages to the Plaintiff/Applicant for trespass and contravention of the Plaintiffs’/Applicants fundamental right provided for by Section 21 of the CONSTITUTION OF <b>SIERRA LEONE 1991.</b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection4"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">From the above analysis, it cannot be disputed that it was the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent who solely acted in violation of section 21 o~ the <b>CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE 1991. </b>This Court holds the view that, notwithstanding the lack of any authority and the fact, as established above, that he had no co-operation from the 2<sup>nd</sup> and the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants/Respondents. themselves being state actors, as the Director of Surveys and Lands and the Attorney General and Minister of Justice respectively, the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent, from his own point of view at the time he acted, was so acting on behalf of the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE, himself being a state actor as the Minister of Land, Housing and Country. In the circumstance, the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent, who seem to be the one Iiable to  pay damages to the Plaintiff/Applicant for trespass and contravention of the </span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="page:WordSection4"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:127%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Plaintiff/Applicants’ fundamental rights provided for by Section 21 of the <b>CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE 1991 </b>ought to be ordered to pay damages to the Plaintiff/Applicant.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:23px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection4"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Obviously, an Order for the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent to pay Damages to the Plaintiff/Applicant would not be an Order directed personally to the 1st Defendant/Respondent, by reason that as stated above, at the time he acted he did so for and on behalf of the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE as the Minister of Lands, Housing and Country Planning and there is no way he could have acted personally. It cannot be disputed that, had he succeeded and compulsorily taken possession of and acquired the interest or right over the property of Sussex, subject matter of the application herein, in compliance with Section 21 of the <b>CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE 1991, </b>it is the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE that would have benefited. It stands to reason that, if there is a detriment to be suffered as a result of the conduct of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent, it is the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE that should bear it. Consequently, an Order for the1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent to pay Damages to the Plaintiff/Applicant would in effect be an indirect one for the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE to pay Damages to the Plaintiff/Applicant. It should be noted however that from the foregoing, this Court has no inclination to make an indirect Order for the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE to pay Damages to the Plaintiff/Applicant for the contravention of Section 21 of the <b>CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE 1991 </b>and it would refrain from making such an Order for very good reasons.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection4"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">In the first place and as stated above, it would seem very unfair to order the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE to pay Damages when the evidence does not show that the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant/Respondent, who is one of the persons who the Plaintiff/Applicant requests an order to be made against, doing anything absolutely to help or assist the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent. Further, it would seem very unfair to order the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE to pay Damages, when it has been uncontrovertibly shown that, the 3<sup>rd </sup>Defendant/Respondent severally advised that, the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent refrains from conducting himself in the way he did, so much so that, this Court interpreted such persistent advise to mean the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant/Respondent saying to the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent that, he would be acting on his own if he proceeds with his actions as outlined above. It would seem very unfair also, </span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="page:WordSection4"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="tab-stops:164.8pt 277.1pt 344.7pt 389.45pt 469.15pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">subject matter of the application herein as his own by extra judicial means, the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent unlawfully using his position as the Minister of Lands, Housing and Country Planning to do so, the same which the 3<sup>rd</sup></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="page:WordSection4"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="tab-stops:164.8pt 277.1pt 344.7pt 389.45pt 469.15pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Defendant/Respondent had clearly pointed out to the 1<sup>st</sup></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="page:WordSection4"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Defendant/Respondent. This Court holds the view that, notwithstanding the fact that as stated above it would seem very unfair to order the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE to pay Damages for the reasons stated above, there is still nothing shown stopping this Court from making an order indirectly ordering the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE to pay Damages by reason that the reasons given above why it should not order Damages against the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE are purely sentimental and that this Court should not act on sentiments. It would seem then that for the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE to escape liability for Damages, it would by itself and or through its state actors like the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant/Respondent to do more than giving advices. Steps should have been taken to ensure that the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent is stopped forthwith from proceeding with his acts.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:23px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection4"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">This Court takes judicial notice of the notorious fact that the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent is no longer the Minister of Lands Housing and Country Planning since he was relieved of his office as such sometime during the pendency of the application herein. Even though the relieving of his duties seem to be rather belated as it did not prevent the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent from proceeding with his acts, his relieving of his duties came before the consideration of the grant of the orders sought herein. Clearly even though the said 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent conducted himself whilst he was Minister of Lands, Housing and Country Planning no order can be made against him as the Minister of Lands, Housing and Country Planning by virtue that he is no longer in such office. This Court holds the view that an order though can be made against him personally as DR. DENNIS M. SANDY, since by so doing, the same would not be tantamount to indirectly ordering the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE to pay Damages. In this regard, even though the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent cannot be ordered to pay Damages to the Plaintiff/Applicant for his conduct in breach of Section 21 of the CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE, he would be liable to pay the Plaintiff/Applicant Damages for Trespass to the property at Sussex, the subject matter of the application herein.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:23px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection4"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="tab-stops:344.7pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">As regards the Plaintiff/Applicant’s claim for Damages for Trespass, the law as stated by <b>RENNER-THOMAS </b>CJ in the case between <b>SORIE TARAWALLI </b>and <b>SORIE KAMARA </b>cited above is that:                                                                        '<sup>z</sup></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:11px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection4"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><i><span style="color:black">‘all the Plaintiff has to prove is a better right to possession than the Defendant and that one way to do this is to show that he has a better title to the piece or parcel of land in question’.</span></i></b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:11px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection4"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Clearly as this Court finds from the above, it holds the view that the Plaintiff/Applicant has proved that he has a better title to the property at Sussex, which is the subject matter of the application herein, than the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent who has not shown any title to the same. From the uncontroverted facts as deposed to in the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU- TARRAF sworn to on the 30<sup>th</sup> October 2020, this Court holds the view that the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent has trespassed on the property at Sussex, which is the subject matter of the application herein, and that the Plaintiff/Applicant is therefore entitled to Damages for trespass. Uncontrovertibly, it is deposed to in the said affidavit that on the 8<sup>th</sup> July 2020, the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent entered the property of the Plaintiff/Applicant aforesaid with armed men dressed with purported police and military fatigue, forcefully removing the guards deployed to secure the property aforesaid and carting away building materials worth millions of Sierra Leone Leones. This Court finds that, from Exhibits ‘MAT <b>14’, ‘MAT 15<sup>1</sup>'<sup>34</sup>’, ‘MAT 19’ </b>and <b>‘MAT 20’ </b>the same which are photographs depicting the trespass and malicious damage on the said property aforesaid, a storage pin being a video and photos showing the demolition and destruction of the structures on the said property respectively, the same annexed to the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU-TARRAF aforesaid, the damage done on the property at Sussex, the subject matter of the application herein, seems to be minimal. What is seen are a few pieces of Zinc, Wooden Boards and Sticks, metal railings all of which seem to be remnants of some destruction to some temporal structure(s), together with a few concrete blocks scattered around a concrete fence structure, the top parts of which show minimal destruction, the said destruction together with the building materials carted away which this Court assesses at Ten Million Sierra Leone Leones (SLL 10,000,000.00).</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:11px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection4"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">By reason that the Interlocutory Injunction granted aforesaid, was properly granted, the undertaking in damages filed by the Plaintiff/Applicant on the 16<sup>th </sup>February 2021 ought to be discharged. Notwithstanding the fact that it has been held above that, the 2<sup>nd</sup> and the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants/Respondents cannot be held responsible for the conduct of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent the Plaintiff/Applicant is entitled to the Perpetual Injunction sought herein, primarily to ensure that the successors-in-office of all the Defendants/Respondents are kept in check to prevent a re-occurrence of the conduct of the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent. The Plaintiff/Applicant is also entitled to the Costs of the application and of the proceedings herein.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </div> <p> </p> <div class="WordSection5"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:73px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection5"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">By reason of the above, the Plaintiff/Applicant succeeds in his application. This Court hereby make the following Declarations and grants the following Orders:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:73px; margin-left:5px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection5"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="tab-stops:35.3pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><a name="bookmark14" id="bookmark14"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">It is hereby <b>DECLARED </b>that MOHAMED KAMEL WANZA is the fee simple owner of all that property, situate, lying and being at Peninsula Road, Sussex Village, in the Western Area of Sierra Leone, measuring about 9.3019 acres in area more particularly described and delineated on survey plan dated 27<sup>th</sup> July 1990 and numbered LS 1737/90 and based on Deed of Conveyance made between GHAZI R. FAIAD and MOHAMED KAMEL WANZA, the Plaintiff/Applicant herein, dated 15<sup>th</sup> November 1990 and registered as No. 1602/90 at page 49 in Volume 444 of the Books of Conveyances kept in the office of the Registrar General at Walpole Street Freetown, the said property which is Private Land.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:73px; margin-left:5px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection5"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="tab-stops:35.3pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><a name="bookmark15" id="bookmark15"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">It is hereby <b>DECLARED </b>that DR. DENNIS M. SANDY the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent has violated the rights of the Plaintiff/Applicant herein, contained in Section 21 of the <b>CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE, 1991 </b>in that, DR DENNIS M. SANDY the erstwhile MINISTER OF LANDS, HOUSING AND COUNTRY PLANNING, the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent herein, forcibly and forcefully and without lawful excuse or authority laid hold of and unlawfully seized and laid claim to all that property aforesaid, situate, lying and being at Peninsula Road, Sussex in the Western Area of Sierra Leone, the same whereof is owned legally and beneficially by the said Plaintiff/Applicant, the person entitled to possession of the same and who has been the person possessed of and otherwise well and sufficiently entitled to possession of the same for upwards of Thirty (30) years last past at least.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:5px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection5"><span style="line-height: 122%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 13pt;"><a name="bookmark16" id="bookmark16"></a></span><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: 13pt;">It is hereby </span><b style="font-size: 13pt;">DECLARED </b><span style="font-size: 13pt;">that the said acts and actions and the several written and oral declarations of the 1</span><sup style="font-size: 13pt;">st</sup><span style="font-size: 13pt;"> Defendant/Respondent are tantamount to a violent wrongful and unlawful deprivation of the property rights of the said Plaintiff/Applicant contrary to the provisions of section 21 and 22 of the CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE said acts and Declarations of the 1</span><span style="font-size: 14.4444px;">st </span><span style="font-size: 13pt;"> Defendant/Respondent are not </span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:125%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">uncontroverted facts in relation to the said application are that, on the 12<sup>th</sup> June 2020, the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent entered the property of the Plaintiff/Applicant at Peninsula Road, Sussex Village aforesaid, with no indication of what motivated the entry upon the said property. On the 8<sup>th</sup> July 2020, the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent again entered the property of the Plaintiff/Applicant aforesaid with armed men dressed with purported police and military fatigue, forcefully removing the guards deployed to secure the property aforesaid and carting away building materials worth millions of Sierra Leone Leones. On this occasion, the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent also took away the keys to the main gate of the property.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol></div> <div class="WordSection6"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">The affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU-TARRAF aforesaid, deposes further that prior to the dates aforesaid, the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent uncontrovertibly, had previously entered the property of the Plaintiff/Applicant aforesaid, on the 1<sup>st </sup>August 2018 with a truck full of police officers, claiming that the same is Government land, the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent who proceeded to seriously damage the zinc structure which the Plaintiff/Applicant had built on the property aforesaid, for his security guards on the same, the said 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent who then erected a sign post on the property with the inscription ‘GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE MINISTRY OF LANDS HOUSING AND ENVIRONMENT CLAIMED AS STATE LAND DIRECTOR OF SURVEYS AND LANDS. On the 16<sup>th</sup> July 2020, the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent once again entered into the property of the Plaintiff/Applicant claiming that the piece or parcel of land is Government land, the said 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent who proceeded to erect sign posts on the property with the inscription <b>‘STATE LAND’.</b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Uncontrovertibly, on Tuesday the 25<sup>th</sup> August 2020, the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent entered the Plaintiff/Applicant’s property at Peninsula Circular Road, Sussex in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone aforesaid, with about forty (40) armed men dressed in military fatigue with others appearing in the Operational Support Division of the Sierra Leone Police attire and others in civilian attire and broke down three (3) sign posts and damaged the zinc (pan body) structure erected by the Plaintiff/Applicant on the property aforesaid. It remains uncontroverted that during this incident, one of the security personnel accompanying the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent slapped one Sergeant ALUSINE S. CONTEH 536 who was officially assigned to the property aforesaid, by the SIERRA LEONE POLICE, the said Sergeant ALUSINE S. CONTEH 536 who officially reported the matter aforesaid, to the Station which said matter was referred to the Headquarter pf z</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">LEONE POLICE and statements obtained from witnesses including Sergeant ALUSINE S. CONTEH 536, but which said matter remains under investigations, whilst the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent continue to threaten the effective possession of the property aforesaid.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:125%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Uncontrovertibly, the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent also instructed some persons that he entered the property with on the 25<sup>th</sup> August 2020 to write ‘stop work’ on the gates of the property in bold red paint as shown in Exhibit <b>‘MAT 14<sup>1-2</sup>’, </b>the same being photographs depicting the Plaintiff/Applicant’s claim aforesaid, that on the instructions of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent, persons who entered the property of the Plaintiff/Applicant aforesaid with the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent wrote ‘stop work’ on the gates of the said property, Exhibits <b>‘MAT 15<sup>1</sup>'<sup>34</sup>’ </b>which are photographs depicting the trespass and malicious damage committed on the property of the Plaintiff/Applicant at Peninsula Circular Road, Sussex Village in the Western Area of Sierra Leone by and under the instructions and supervision of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent, Exhibits <b>‘MAT 19’ </b>and <b>‘MAT 20’ </b>being a video recording with photographs showing one of the violent attacks by the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent on the Plaintiff/Applicant’s property aforesaid, the demolition and destruction of the structures on the said property, the incidents aforesaid, which was reported in local newspapers as seen in Exhibits <b>‘MAT 21<sup>1</sup>-<sup>4</sup>’.</b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Uncontrovertibly and as deposed in the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU-TARRAF aforesaid, the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent was always accompanied by one REV DAVID CHAMBERS, who as the Plaintiff/Applicant claims, is a well-known land grabber, the Plaintiff/Applicant who says he cannot fathom the reason why the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent would be going on the property aforesaid, with him.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Clearly, the uncontroverted facts as outlined above, would be the same as the Plaintiff/Applicant asserting that, his property at Sussex aforesaid, the subject matter of the action herein was compulsorily taken possession of and his interests in or rights over the said property compulsorily acquired by the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent herein, all in breach of Section 21(1) of the <b>CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE 1991. </b>Further, the uncontroverted facts aforesaid are again the same as the Plaintiff/Applicant asserting that, the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent forcefully entered his property aforesaid, without his approval and consent, in breach of Section 22(1) of the <b>CONSTITUTION </b>aforesaid. This Court holds the view that, it is in this rega<u>rd th</u>at the Plaintiff/Applicant proceeded to file the application herein, <b>pursuant to section </b>28(1) of the <b>CONSTITUTION </b>aforesaid, the same which provides follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><i><span style="color:black">‘... If any person alleges that any of Sections 16 to 27 (inclusive) has been, is being or is likely to be contravened in relation to him by any person... then, without prejudice to any other action with respect to the same matter which is lawfully available, that person (or that other person), may apply by Motion to the Supreme Court for redress’.</span></i></b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">In this case, the Plaintiff/Applicant asserts that the actions of the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent as outlined above, contravenes Sections 21(1) and 22(1) of the CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE 1991. It cannot be disputed that the said provisions fall within Sections 16 to 27 of the same. This being the case, the enforcement of and or the interpretation of Sections 21(1) and 22(1) aforesaid which are provisions of the CONSTITUTION aforesaid, are matters which would have to be dealt with. By virtue of the fact that the provisions aforesaid are provisions contained in the CONSTITUTION aforesaid, the enforcement of and interpretation of the same could only be dealt with by this Court, pursuant to Section 124(1) of the said CONSTITUTION which provides thus:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><i><span style="color:black">‘The Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other Courts in all matters relating to the enforcement or interpretation of any provision of the CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE 1991’.</span></i></b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">It should be pointed out that, the complaint of the Plaintiff/Applicant is, that the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent has claimed that the property situate lying and being at Peninsula Road, Sussex in the Western Area of Sierra Leone more particularly described and delineated on the survey plan numbered LS 1631/90 is State Land. The Plaintiff/Applicant on the other hand insists that the said property is his, claiming that by his conduct, the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent has wrongly construed the enactment which defines what State Land is, his actions regarding the same, which is inconsistent with the provisions of Sections 21(1) and 22(1) of the CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE 1991. Clearly the Plaintiff/Applicant’s claim aforesaid is being made pursuant to Section 127(1) of the said CONSTITUTION which provides thus:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><i><span style="color:black">‘A person who alleges that an enactment or anything contained in or done under the authority of that or any other enactment is inconsistent with or is in contravention of a provision of the CONSTITUTION herein, <u>may at any </u>time bring an action in the Supreme Court for a Declaration to...</span></i></b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:25px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Indeed, the principal question which this Court seeks to answer is, whether or not the property, being the piece or parcel of land and hereditaments situate, lying and being at Peninsula Road, Sussex in the Western Area of Sierra Leone, the subject matter of the application herein is State Land. Section 2 of the <b>STATE LANDS ACT 1960 </b>defines ‘State Land’ as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:25px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><i><span style="color:black">‘STATE LANDS mean all lands which belong to the state by virtue of any treaty, cession, convention or agreement and all lands which have been, or may hereafter be acquired by or on behalf of the state for any public purpose or otherwise howsoever and lands acquired under the provisions of the PUBLIC LANDS ACT and include all shores, beaches, lagoons, creeks, rivers, estuaries and other places and waters whatsoever belonging to, acquired by, or which may be lawfully disposed of by or on behalf of the state’....</span></i></b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:25px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">It is absolutely clear that it has not been shown and that there is no evidence whatsoever suggesting that the property aforesaid, which is the subject matter of application herein belongs to the state by virtue of any treaty, cession, convention or agreement. Rather the Plaintiff/Applicant has sufficiently shown as deposed in the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU-TARAFF sworn to on the 30<sup>th </sup>October 2020, that by virtue of a Deed of Conveyance dated 15<sup>th</sup> November 1990 expressed to be made between MOHAMED GHAZI RACHED FAIAD and the Plaintiff/Applicant herein duly registered as No. 1602/90 at page 49 in Volume 444 in the Book of Conveyances kept in the office of the Registrar General in Freetown, in respect of the property aforesaid, delineated on survey plan dated 27<sup>th</sup> July 1990 and numbered LS 1737/90, Plot 1 measuring 8.0549 acres in area and Plot 2 measuring 1.2470 acres in area, the same which is annexed to the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU-TARAFF aforesaid and marked Exhibit <b>‘MAT 2’, </b>the Plaintiff/Applicant herein became seized in fee simple of and otherwise well sufficiently entitled to the property, the subject matter of the application herein.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">As is deposed to in the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU-TARAFF aforesaid, the same which remains unconverted, prior to the delineation of the property, subject matter of the application herein on a private survey plan dated 27<sup>th</sup> July 1990 and numbered LS 1737/90 and signed by a predecessor-in-office of the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant/Respondent, approving same as private property of the</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:25px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:120%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Plaintiff/Applicant herein, the delineation of the said property on another private survey plan dated 6<sup>th</sup> July 1990 and numbered LS 1631/90, had a predecessor-in-office of the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant/Respondent, approving same as private property of MR MOHAMED GHAZI RACHED FAIAD, the immediate predecessor-in-title to the said property of the Plaintiff/Applicant herein. Clearly as deposed to the affidavit aforesaid, it cannot be disputed that the predecessor­-office of the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant/Respondent in the Ministry of Lands and Surveys as custodians of State Lands, would not have signed the said survey plans and approved same as private property with the full knowledge that the property aforesaid, is State Land.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:23px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">As submitted by P. LAMBERT ESQ. of Counsel for the Plaintiff/Applicant, the same contained in the Plaintiff/Applicant’s statement of case dated 9<sup>th </sup>November 2020 at paragraph 16, the Ministry of Lands and Surveys should always know from their records and ought never to be in doubt about which lands are State Lands and there certainly ought never to be in a situation where the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant/Respondent including his predecessors-in-office have passed, approved and authenticated a particular survey plan and assigned to it an LS number as being private land, only for the Minister to later claim that such land is State Land, without any supporting evidence whatsoever, the submission aforesaid, which this Court upholds.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">As deposed to in the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU-TARAFF aforesaid, this Court finds that consistent with the exercise of an owners right to private property as opposed to the exercise of a State owned rights to State Lands, the Plaintiff/Applicant herein after purchasing the said property, which is the subject matter of the application herein from MOHAMED GHAZI RACHED FAIAD, he subsequently leased the same to DOMAINE DE BAW-BAW BEACH COMPANY LTD. in 1991, the said Company who erected villas on the said property, the Lease Agreement aforesaid, which is annexed to the affidavit aforesaid and marked Exhibit <b>‘MAT 4’. </b>Uncontrovertibly and by a Judgement dated 22<sup>nd</sup> March 1994, the same annexed to the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU- TARAFF and marked Exhibit <b>‘MAT 5’, </b>the Plaintiff/Applicant was granted the Recovery of Possession of the property aforesaid, from DOMAINE DE BAW- BAW BEACH COMPANY LTD, the said Judgement which the Appeals Court upheld by its Judgement dated 12<sup>th</sup> October 1999 as seen in Exhibit <b>‘MAT 6’, </b>annexed to the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU-TARAFF. Prior to the said</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:127%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Judgement by the Court of Appeal, execution of the Judgement of the High Court dated 22<sup>nd</sup> March 1994 was done and possession of the property at</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><img align="left" src="file:///C:/Users/DELL/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image018.png" style="width:204px; height:1px" /><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Peninsula Road, Sussex, the subject matter of the application herein, was handed overt© the Plaintiff/Applicant herein. Clearly, it cannot be dis^uted4]^t, as deposed to in the affidavit of MUSTAPHA AB Plaintiff/Applicant herein, has since then been in continuous possession and </span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:125%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">control of the said property until the 18<sup>th</sup> August 2018, when the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent entered the said property, declaring that the same is State Land.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">As deposed to in the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU-TARRAF aforesaid, the property aforesaid of the Plaintiff/Applicant was the subject of another Court matter between <b>ALFRED P. JOHNSON (Deceased) &amp; ROBERT JOHNSON </b>as Plaintiffs and <b>CHARLES HUMPAH </b>(both on his own behalf and as Agent for <b>THEOPHILLUS MASON), MOHAMED GHAZI R. FAIAD, </b>the Plaintiff/Applicant’s immediate predecessor-in-title &amp; <b>MOHAMED KAMEL WANZA, </b>the Plaintiff/Applicant herein as Defendants, MISC. APP. 223/09 in the High Court of Sierra Leone (unreported), which said matter involved the Plaintiffs in the same disputing rights of the Plaintiff/Applicants herein over the property which is the subject of the application herein. After a full trial of the said matter, as uncontrovertibly deposed to in the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU- TARAFF, that the Solicitor for the Plaintiffs in the said matter approached the Solicitors for the Defendants, to explore the possibility of settling the matter out of Court, consequent upon which, settlement was reached in accordance with a Terms of settlement signed by all the parties dated 23<sup>rd</sup> March 2016, the same annexed to the affidavit aforesaid and marked Exhibit <b>‘MAT 7’. </b>From the facts as deposed to in the said affidavit, this Court finds that the said Terms of Settlement was adopted by the High Court as a Consent Judgement on the 28<sup>th </sup>April 2016 and Judgement entered in favor of the Plaintiff/Applicant herein, the same which is annexed to the affidavit of MOHAMED ABU TARRAF and marked Exhibit ‘MAT8’, which in part stipulate as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><i><span style="color:black">‘that ALFRED JOHNSON (Deceased) and ROBERT JOHNSON, the Plaintiffs in the matter aforesaid unanimously, voluntarily, wholly and absolutely accept and acknowledge that MOHAMED KAMEL WANZA ‘the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant in the said matter and the Plaintiff/Applicant herein, is the bona fide fee simple owner entitled to permanent ownership and possession of the Two (2) pieces of land situate at Peninsula Road, Sussex Village aforesaid measuring 8.0549 acres (as defined in Plot 1) and 1.2470 acres (as defined in Plot 2) both of which are delineated on survey plan dated 27<sup>th</sup> July 1990 and numbered LS 1737/90 and attached to a Deed of Conveyance dated 15<sup>th</sup> November 1990 and registered as No. 1602/90 at page 49 in Volume 444 in the Books of Conveyances kept in the Office of the Registrar General in Freetown and that the said MOHAMED KAMEL WANSA the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant in the matter aforesaid, the</span></i></b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><i><span style="color:black">herein shall have free, undisturbed and quiet enjoyment of the said piece </span></i></b></span></span></span></span></span><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><span style="color:black">or <i>parcel of land free from any encumbrances, restraint, trespass or encroachment from ALFRED JOHNSON (Deceased) and ROBERT JOHNSON, the Plaintiffs in the matter aforesaid, their privies, agents, assigns, servants, relations and or representatives'.</i></span></b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">From the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU-TARRAF sworn to on the 9<sup>th</sup> November 2020, this Court finds that, subsequent to the Judgement aforesaid entered in favor of the Plaintiff/Applicant as expressed in Exhibit <b>‘MAT 8’ </b>annexed to the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU-TARRAF sworn to on the 30<sup>th</sup> October 2020, one ANTHONY SAMU filed an application by Notice of Motion dated 11<sup>th</sup> January 2017, praying for him to be added a Defendant in the matter between <b>ALFRED P. JOHNSON (Deceased) &amp; ROBERT JOHNSON </b>as Plaintiffs and <b>CHARLES HUMPAH (both on his behalf and as Agent for THEOPHILLUS MASON), MOHAMED GHAZI R. FAIAD &amp; MOHAMED KAMEL WANSA, </b>cited above, a matter for which the Judgement aforesaid was given. From the facts as presented in his affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion aforesaid, marked Exhibit <b>‘MAT 23’ </b>annexed to the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU-TARRAF sworn to on the 9<sup>th</sup> November 2020, the said ANTHONY SAMU claimed that, by reason that he also has a claim over the property which is the subject matter of the action herein, he should have been made a party to the matter for which the Judgement aforesaid was given. ANTHONY SAMU claimed in his affidavit marked Exhibit <b>‘MAT 23’ </b>aforesaid, that it was only one REV. DAVID CHAMBERS who was laying false claims to the property aforesaid, which necessitated him taking a civil action against him. He claimed further that on numerous occasions one PHILIP NEVILLE had met him on the property in question and on a specific day he approached the said PHILIP NEVILLE who then warned him to stay off the said property, PHILIP NEVILLE who then made a report against him for Threatening Remarks and Trespass at the Police. The said ANTHONY SAMU claimed that as a result of the above, the Judgement aforesaid as expressed in Exhibit ‘MAT 8’ and annexed to the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU-TARRAF sworn to on the 30<sup>th</sup> October 2020 is a complete error and therefore should be set aside. It cannot be disputed that, there is absolutely no evidence presented that the Judgement aforesaid was set aside or that the said ANTHONY SAMU pursued his claims to ownership of the property aforesaid, against the Plaintiff/Applicant.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">This Court holds the view that, may be, the clearest determination to the answer whether the property which is the subject matter of the application herein is state land could be found in Exhibit <b>‘MAT 22’ </b>annexed to the affidavit of  MUSTAPHA ABU-TARRAF sworn to on the 9<sup>th</sup> November 2020. <b>EXHIBIT 'MAT22' </b>is an </span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:125%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">uncontroverted report done by one S.A. LUSANIE a Licensed Surveyor after his services were engaged by the Plaintiff/Applicant to investigate the claims made by the 1<sup>st</sup> and the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants/Respondents that the property aforesaid is State Land. As contained in Exhibit <b>‘MAT 22’ </b>aforesaid, the analysis of the survey plans for REV. DAVID CHAMBERS and ANTHONY SAMU, concludes respectively that, the survey plans for BRIAN KELVIN CHAMBERS of 1954 and the survey plan for REV. DAVID CHAMBERS were falsified and that by reason that the LS numbers for 1968 ends at the 1500 series, the survey plan for ANTHONY SAMU numbered LS 2141/68 does not exist and is falsified.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">In so far as the claim that the property aforesaid is State Land is concerned, Exhibit <b>‘MAT 22’ </b>aforesaid stipulates that the identification of beacon SLS 37/61 normally creates the impression that the property has some connection with Government survey. However, Exhibit <b>‘MAT 22’ </b>stipulates further that the investigations indicate that the presence of the Government beacon SLS 37/61 in or around the property in question refers to a survey conducted in 1961 to a piece or parcel of land that was referred to as the Governor’s Lodge in accordance with Exhibit <b>‘MAT 22’. </b>The Record Book of Deeds kept in the office of the Director of Surveys and Lands, show that the survey aforesaid, refers to a transfer of land from A.P. BRUNO GASTON conveyed to the Government of Sierra Leone dated 27<sup>th</sup> June 1961 for a piece or parcel of land at Sussex. Exhibit <b>‘MAT 22’ </b>stipulates that this same piece or parcel of land was leased to ARNOLD BISHOP GOODING on the 15<sup>th</sup> January 1991 and sold to him on the 4<sup>th</sup> August 1993. It is seen from the attachments, labelled Annexes 1 and 2, to Exhibits <b>‘MAT 22’, </b>that the survey plans of ARNOLD BISHOP GOODING, clearly represented the Governor’s Lodge defined by Government Beacons numbered SLS 37/61/BP8, SLS 37/61/BP9, SLS 37/61/BP10 and SLS 37/61/B11 against the Plaintiff/Applicants property, the said attachments which clearly show that the Plaintiff’/Applicant’s property is different, separate and distinct from that of the Governor’s Lodge and separated by access roads. Exhibit <b>‘MAT 22’ </b>concludes that the Plaintiff/Applicants property is private property and it is not State Land, that the piece or parcel of land purchased by the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE in 1961 for the construction of the Governor’s Lodge was originally the private property of A.P. BRUNO GASTON, the same which was conveyed to ARNOLD BISHOP GOODING in 1993 and that no claims can be made by REV. DAVID CHAMBERS and ANTHONY SAMU to the property which is the subject matter of the application herein by reason of the defects in their respective survey plans as stated in <b>Exhibit MAT 22’.</b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:125%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">It cannot be disputed that the above analysis conclusively establish the fact that the property situate at Peninsula Road, Sussex, in the Western Area of Sierra Leone, the subject matter of the application herein cannot be State Land in accordance with the definition in Section 2 of the <b>STATE LANDS ACT 1960 </b>or any other legislation in Sierra Leone. This Court upholds the submission of P. LAMBERT ESQ. of Counsel for the Plaintiff/Applicant, that the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd </sup>Defendants/Respondents failed to produce any evidence in support of the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent’s claim that the said property is State Land. The fact that the property aforesaid, is not STATE LAND has severally been confirmed by the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant/Respondent.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">The 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant/Respondent is the ATTORNEY GENERAL and MINISTER OF JUSTICE who, in accordance with Section 64(1) of the <b>CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE 1991, </b>shall be the Principal Legal Adviser to the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE, including with certainty, the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent who at the relevant point in time was the Minister of Lands, Housing and Country Planning and a part of Cabinet and by extension part ofthe GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE. As submitted by P. LAMBERT ESQ. of Counsel for the Plaintiff/Applicant, the same which this Court sees no reason to overrule, the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant/Respondent has been made a party to the action herein in his capacity as Principal Legal Adviser to the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE and also in the light of the exchanges of correspondence between the Solicitor for the Plaintiff/Applicant and himself, the 3<sup>rd </sup>Defendant/Respondent. Following several complaints made by the Solicitors for the Plaintiff/Applicant herein of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent conduct as outlined above, the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant/Respondent made it absolutely and unequivocally clear that the property which is the subject matter of the application herein is Private Property and not STATE LAND as seen in Exhibits <b>‘MAT 10’ ‘MAT 13’ </b>and <b>‘MAT 18’ </b>annexed to the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU TARRAF.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Exhibit <b>‘MAT 10’ </b>is a letter dated 6<sup>th</sup> July 2020 addressed to PATRICK LAMBERT, LAMBERT AND PARTNERS, the Solicitors for the Plaintiff/Applicant and copied to the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent herein on the subject <b>‘PROPERTY SITUATED AT PENINSULA ROAD SUSSEX,</b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:488.35pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><span style="color:black">FREETOWN BEING PRIVATE PROPERTY OF MOHAMED K. WANSA’, </span></b><span style="color:black">from OSMAN I. KANU acting for and on behalf of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant/Respondent acknowledging receipt of certain documents and outlining the facts of an alleged trespass on and malicious damage relating to the property aforesaid by DAVID CHAMBERS, which said documents have been forwarded to the 1st</span></span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Defendant/Respondent, the said OSMAN I. KANU confirming that the said property is private property, the Courts recognizing that the same belongs to the Plaintiff/Applicant and that until there is evidence in the nature of a Judgement overturning the decisions of the High Court and the Court of Appeal as seen in Exhibits <b>‘MAT 5’, ‘MAT 6’ </b>and <b>‘MAT 8’ </b>annexed to the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU-TARRAF sworn to on the 30<sup>th</sup> October 2020, the property aforesaid remains vested in the Plaintiff/Applicant, confirming that the same is private property.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Exhibit <b>‘MAT 13’ </b>is a letter dated 14<sup>th</sup> August 2020, addressed to the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent herein and copied the Solicitors for the Plaintiff/Applicant on the subject <b>‘PROPERTY SITUATED AT PENINSULA ROAD SUSSEX, FREETOWN BEING PRIVATE PROPERTY OF MOHAMED K. WANSA’ </b>from the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant/Respondent herein, expressing his legal opinion on an investigation of the documentary evidence of title of both the Plaintiff/Applicant and REV. DAVID CHAMBERS to the property at Peninsula Road, Sussex, which is the subject matter of the application herein, which both are claiming ownership of, the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant/Respondent concluding that the said property is private property, that the Courts have confirmed and recognized that the same belongs to the Plaintiff/Applicant, that until there is evidence in the nature of a Judgement overturning the above mentioned decision of the High Court, the property aforesaid, will remain to be vested in the Plaintiff/Applicant, the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant/Respondent further advising the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent that where there is a dispute relating to title to land between private individuals or persons, it is only a court of competent jurisdiction in Sierra Leone that has the constitutional right to adjudicate upon such dispute and not the Ministry of Lands as in this instant case.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:500.95pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Exhibit <b>“MAT 18” </b>is a letter dated 4<sup>th</sup> September 2020 addressed to the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent herein and copied the Solicitors for the Plaintiff/Applicant herein, on the subject <b>‘PROPERTY SITUATED AT PENINSULA ROAD SUSSEX, FREETOWN BEING PRIVATE PROPERTY OF MOHAMED K. WANSA’, </b>from the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant/Respondent, outlining the various acts of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent, the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant/Respondent who claimed the same to be done in the guise of acting for and on behalf of the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE and reminding the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent that the property in question is privately owned, which ought to be interpreted as being neither a State Land nor belonging to the Ministry of Lands, Housing and County Planning as reported .</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">inscribed under the instructions and supervision of</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Defendant/Respondent, the same which deliberately side step the legal opinion of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant/Respondent as expressed in Exhibit <b>‘MAT 13’ </b>aforesaid, the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant/Respondent entreating the good office of the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent to kindly refrain from such conduct and to further show respect to the laws of the land and adherence to the Judgements as pronounced by the Courts.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Clearly, the above determines that the property at Peninsula Road, Sussex aforesaid, which is the subject matter of the application herein is not STATE LAND but privately owned. This Court holds the view that the question asked for which the answer aforesaid is given seems to be incomplete. This is so by reason that, if we categorically state that a piece or parcel of land in privately owned, even though it is conclusive that it is not STATE LAND, the recipient of that categorized statement aforesaid, would want to know who privately owns the piece or parcel of land in question. Undisputedly, it is the Courts that would have to answer the question aforesaid. This Court will be remiss in its duty if it simply determines that the property aforesaid, which is the subject matter of the application herein is not STATE LAND and fails to determine and declare ownership of it. If it fails in this regard, further litigation is absolutely possible after it will have determined that the said property is not STATE LAND in view of the fact that apart from the Plaintiff/Applicant herein, Two (2) other contenders claiming ownership of the said property, in persons of ANTHONY SAMU and REV. DAVID CHAMBERS have emerged. In so far as the Plaintiff/Applicant is concerned, this Court needs to ascertain whether as is deposed to in the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU TARRAF sworn to on the 30<sup>th</sup> October 2020, ownership of the property aforesaid, has been judiciously declared and confirmed in favor of the Plaintiff/Applicant.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:479.35pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">As regards the claim for ownership of the property aforesaid, which is the subject matter of the application herein between ANTHONY SAMU and REV. DAVID CHAMBERS, ANTHONY SAMU had claimed, as seen in Exhibit <b>‘MAT 23’ </b>annexed to the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU TARAFF sworn to on the 9<sup>th </sup>November 2020, that he took civil action against REV. DAVID CHAMBERS. He claimed further that based on the investigations conducted by DONALD JONES, the then Assistant Director of Surveys and Lands and CHARLES A. SENESIE a Technical Officer attached to the Ministry of Lands, it was concluded that by their report annexed to the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU TARRAF aforesaid marked Exhibit <b>‘MAT 25’, </b>the rightful owner of the property aforesaid is FODAY JOHN SAMU (Deceased) represented by ANTHONY SAMU(next of kin). Unfortunately, this is only as far as it went. It is not known of the action which the said ANTHONY SAMU claims to have been brought against REV. DAVID CHAMBERS as deposed to by the said ANTHONY SAMU in his affidavit aforesaid, neither has it been shown that ownership of the property aforesaid has been judiciously declared and confirmed by the Courts in favor of ANTHONY SAMU.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">As regards the claim of ownership of the said property between ANTHONY SAMU and the Plaintiff/Applicant herein, it cannot be disputed that, other than the fact that the said ANTHONY SAMU applied to the Courts to be added as a Defendant in the matter between <b>ALFRED P. JOHNSON (DECEASED) &amp; ROBERT JOHNSON </b>as Plaintiffs and <b>CHARLES HUMPAH, MOHAMED GHAZI R. FAIAD &amp; MOHAMED KAMEL WANSA </b>cited above, nothing further was done by the said ANTHONY SAMU in pursuance of his claim to ownership of the property. As was stated above, notwithstanding the fact that he claimed ownership of the property aforesaid, pursuant to which, as he says, he ought to have been made a party to the matter aforesaid and the Judgement in the matter aforesaid, set aside, there is absolutely no evidence presented that the said Judgement was set aside or that the said ANTHONY SAMU pursued his claims to ownership of the property aforesaid and ownership in his favor judiciously declared. The reasons for his failure to pursue his claims to ownership of the said property can very simply be discerned from the facts as presented.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">It is seen from Exhibit <b>‘MAT 23’ </b>annexed to the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU TARAFF sworn to on the 9<sup>th</sup> November 2020, that ANTHONY SAMU had stated that he came to realize that REV. DAVID CHAMBERS was falsely laying claims to the property which is the subject matter of the application herein, sometime in 2015 and that as a result he made a report against REV. DAVID CHAMBERS at the Adonkia Police Station who commenced investigations, the case file of which was subsequently transferred to Lumley Police Station for further investigations and that the section at the Lumley Police station responsible for land grabbing requested the Ministry of Lands for an expert opinion. It is seen further from Exhibit <b>‘MAT 23’ </b>aforesaid that ANTHONY SAMU stated that one PHILIP NEVILLE made a report against him for threatening remarks and Trespass as a result of which he was invited by the police which said invitation he honored and statement was obtained against him, but that since then he has not heard from the police.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">It is seen from Exhibit <b>‘MAT 24’, </b>that the police to whom, the report against ANTHONY SAMU was made by the said PHILIP requested 5^lirustry^6f Lands for an expert opinion as regards inter alia the authenticity <u>of</u> the documents submitted by all parties and the rightful owner of the property which is the subject matter of the application herein. Exhibit <b>‘MAT 24’ </b>is a memorandum dated 5<sup>th</sup> September 2016 from the Head of Crime Management of the Sierra Leone Police to the Director of Surveys and Lands requesting the expert opinion aforesaid.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">As seen from Exhibit <b>‘MAT 24’ </b>aforesaid, several documents were submitted by the said PHILIP NEVILLE, for and on behalf of MOHAMED KAMEL WANSA, the Plaintiff/Applicant herein, by LAMBERT &amp; PARTNERS for and on behalf of the said Plaintiff/Applicant and by ANTHONY SAMU himself. Obviously, by reason of the fact that uncontrovertibly and as seen from Exhibit <b>‘MAT 24’, </b>the said ANTHONY SAMU was copied Exhibit <b>‘MAT 24’, </b>it cannot be true that as stated by him in Exhibit <b>‘MAT 23’, </b>he did not hear from the police since the report by the said PHILIP NEVILLE against him for Threatening Remarks and Trespass was made.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">This Court holds the view that, it is the falsity of the statement made by ANTHONY SAMU, that he did not hear from the police since the report by the said PHILIP NEVILLE against him was made, that exposed the reasons for his failure to pursue his claims to ownership of the property, which is the subject matter of the application herein and exposed the complicity of the officials of the Ministry of Lands to distort the facts. As stated above, ANTHONY SAMU made a report in 2015 against REV. DAVID CHAMBERS in respect of the said property and that subsequently the police to whom the report aforesaid, was made sought the expert opinion of the Ministry of Lands. As stated above further, subsequent to the report made by the said PHILIP NEVILLE for and on behalf of the Plaintiff/Applicant herein against ANTHONY SAMU, the police to whom the said report was made, sought the expert opinion of the same Ministry of Lands in respect of the same property aforesaid on the 5<sup>th</sup> September 2016 as seen from ‘Exhibit <b>‘MAT 24’ </b>aforesaid. Clearly, at the particular point in time, the Ministry of Lands had with them Two (2) separate and distinct request for expert opinion in respect of the same property aforesaid, the 1<sup>st</sup> report made by ANTHONY SAMU and the subsequent one made against ANTHONY SAMU. It cannot be disputed that, the so-called experts in the Ministry of Lands gave expert opinion on the first request and declared ANTHONY SAMU to be the owner of the property aforesaid on the 14<sup>th</sup> November 2016 as seen in Exhibit <b>‘MAT 25’ </b>annexed to the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU TARRAF sworn to on the 9<sup>th</sup> November 2020 but to date and since 5<sup>th</sup> September 2016 have failed to give any expert opinion on the subsequent request made, on</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:369.9pt 484.4pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">the said ANTHONY SAMU.                                                         '                              .</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">This Court holds the view that the failure of the so-called experts in the Ministry of Lands to give expert opinion on the request made by the Police regarding the report made by PHILIP NEVILLE against ANTHONY SAMU seems suspicious and casts considerable doubts on the export opinion given on the 14<sup>th </sup>November 2016 as seen in Exhibit <b>‘MAT 25’ </b>aforesaid.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">This Court holds the view that, it cannot be far from the truth to say that, it is principally, by reason that officials of the Ministry of Lands gave expert opinion on the request made by the Police regarding the report made by ANTHONY SAMU against REV. DAVID CHAMBERS as seen in Exhibit <b>‘MAT 25’ </b>aforesaid, but failed to give expert opinion on the request made by the Police regarding the report made by PHILIP NEVILLE for and on behalf of MOHAMED KAMEL WANZA the Plaintiff/Applicant herein, against the said ANTHONY SAMU, that provoked the said Plaintiff/Applicant to employ the services of S.A. LUSANIE, a Licensed Surveyor to investigate the question of ownership of the property, which is the subject matter of the application herein, the said S.A. LUSANIE who reported on the same as seen in Exhibit <b>‘MAT 22’ </b>aforesaid.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Clearly, it cannot be disputed that, by reason of the fact that since the documents submitted by ANTHONY SAMU on the report made by him would be the same documents submitted by him in respect of the report made against him, the Expert opinion given, as contained in Exhibit <b>‘MAT 25’ </b>aforesaid, that ANTHONY SAMU in the owner of the property aforesaid, it is expected that the expert opinion which was to be given regarding the report against ANTHONY SAMU would be the same as the one already given. Unfortunately, expert opinion in this regard was not given. Regarding the contents of Exhibit ‘MAT <b>25’, </b>it cannot be disputed though that, a Licensed Surveyor given the same circumstance would arrive at the same results as in Exhibit <b>‘MAT 25’ </b>aforesaid, in respect of both the reports, that being ANTHONY SAMU is the owner of the property aforesaid. Unfortunately, this is not the case when S.A. LUSANIE, a Licensed Surveyor investigated ownership of the said property given the same circumstances and declared that the survey plan of the said ANTHONY SAMU presented by him in respect of the said property numbered LS 2141/68 did not exist and was falsified as seen in Exhibit <b>‘MAT 22’ </b>aforesaid.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">As stated in Exhibit <b>‘MAT 25’ </b>aforesaid, that the survey plan presented by ANTHONY SAMU and attached to a conveyance dated 3<sup>rd</sup> April 1971 and registered in Volume 246, page 42 in the Books of Conveyances^»3<sup>l</sup>gfft^jjf the property aforesaid is numbered LS 214/68 whereas, the survey plan of the said ANTHONY SAMU presented to the said S.A. LUSANIE in respect of the same property is numbered LS 2141/68. Clearly, it is impossible for ANTHONY SAMU to have presented Two (2) distinct survey plans bearing Two (2) different and distinct numbers in respect of the same property which is the subject matter of the application herein. The pertinent question then is as follows: <b><i>‘was it the survey plan numbered LS 214/68 which as stated by CHARLES A. SENESIE, a Technical Officer in the Ministry of Lands and Surveys, in Exhibit ‘MAT 25’ aforesaid, the said Technical Officer who prepared and submitted Exhibit ‘MAT 25’, be the survey plan attached to the Conveyance dated 3<sup>rd</sup> April 1971’?</i></b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:4px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Unfortunately and on a search at the Registry, this Court found that, no Conveyance whatsoever was registered in Volume 246 page 42 in the Book of Conveyances. A search of the index at the Registry revealed that no Conveyance dated 3<sup>rd</sup> April 1971 and made between SAMUEL JOHNSON and FODAY JOHN SAMU in respect .of and situated at Peninsula Road, Sussex aforesaid, was entered as registered. Further to the findings of this Court aforesaid, from the returns sent by the Ministry of Lands to the Registrar General about surveys done and survey plans signed by Director of Surveys in the Ministry of Lands and Surveys and from enquiries made from the Ministry of Lands and Surveys, this Court found that the survey plan numbered LS 214/68 was surveyed in the name of JOHN MOMOH rather than in the name of FODAY JOHN SAMU as stated by CHARLES A. SENESIE, in Exhibit <b>‘MAT 25’ </b>aforesaid. This Court found further that, contrary to the assertion by CHARLES A. SENESIE, in Exhibit <b>‘MAT 25’ </b>aforesaid, that the piece or parcel of land for which the survey plan numbered LS 214/68 was done is located at Peninsular Road Sussex, at the same location where the property which is the subject of the application herein is located, the piece or parcel of land for which the survey plan numbered LS 214/68 was done is located at George Brook, Freetown. The findings above explains why a search at the Registry, revealed no Conveyance whatsoever registered in Volume 246 page 42 in the Book of Conveyances because if such a Conveyance actually existed, it is the survey plan numbered LS 2141/68, that would be attached to it. But since it is apparent that, no returns would have been sent by the Ministry of Lands to the Registrar General about this survey done and signed by Director of Surveys in the Ministry of Lands and Surveys, by reason that the last survey done in 1968 as determined from the records at the Ministry of Lands, is survey plan numbered LS 1124/68, no</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:93px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><img align="left" hspace="12" src="file:///C:/Users/DELL/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image020.jpg" style="width:173px; height:1px" /><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Conveyance whatsoever would be registered. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </div> <p> </p> <div class="WordSection7"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:93px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection7"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">sanctioned or authorized by the said CONSTITUTION nor by the PUBLIC <b>LANDS ACT CHAPTER 116 of the LAWS OF SIERRA LEONE 1960 </b>as amended, nor by any other law or nor by custom or nor by convention.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="4"><li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:71px; margin-left:40px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection7"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="tab-stops:61.05pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><a name="bookmark17" id="bookmark17"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">It is hereby <b>DECLARED </b>that the acts of violence, the use of force perpetrated and utilized by the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent with the aid and assistance of armed personnel at the Plaintiff/Applicant’s property aforesaid, in the full view of onlookers, amounts to a breach of the peace in terms of the <b>PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1965 </b>as amended and a contravention of the oath taken by the said 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent on the occasion of him being sworn in as a Minister with Cabinet rank by His Excellency, the President of Sierra Leone, which oath is contained in the Third Schedule to the <b>CONSTITUTION </b>aforesaid specifically, the portion where he swore '.... <b>I will support, uphold and maintain </b>the <b>CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE as by law established, so help me God’.</b></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:68px; margin-left:40px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection7"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="tab-stops:61.05pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><a name="bookmark18" id="bookmark18"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">It is hereby <b>DECLARED </b>that the unlawful actions and declarations of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent in relation to the Plaintiff/Applicant’s ownership of the property aforesaid are against public policy.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:68px; margin-left:40px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection7"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="tab-stops:61.05pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><a name="bookmark19" id="bookmark19"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">A Perpetual Injunction restraining the Defendants/Respondents and their successors in office and their servants or agents from entering upon and claiming the Plaintiff/Applicant’s property aforesaid, as State Land or in any manner whatsoever, from interfering with its use and enjoyment by the Plaintiff/Applicant is hereby <b>GRANTED.</b></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:40px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection7"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="tab-stops:61.05pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><a name="bookmark20" id="bookmark20"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">That the Plaintiff/Applicant RECOVERS from the 1<sup>s: </sup>Defendant/Respondent, Damages for Trespass to the property at Sussex aforesaid, the same which is assessed by this Court at Ten Million Sierra</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:80px"><span style="page:WordSection7"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><img align="left" hspace="12" src="file:///C:/Users/DELL/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image022.jpg" style="width:170px; height:1px" /><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Leone Leones (SLL 10,000,000.00).</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="8"><li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:5px"><span style="page:WordSection7"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:34.45pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><a name="bookmark21" id="bookmark21"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">That the Costs of and occasioned by the application herein together with the proceedings herein be <b>BORNE </b>by the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent herein, the same which shall be taxed if not agreed upon.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol></div> <p> </p> <div class="WordSection8"> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p style="margin-top:7px; margin-bottom:7px"> </p> </div> <p> </p> <div class="WordSection9">  <p style="margin-bottom:48px"> </p> </div> <p>  </p> <div class="WordSection10"> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p style="margin-top:5px; margin-bottom:5px"> </p> </div> <p> </p> <div class="WordSection11"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:4px; text-indent:7.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection11"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><span style="color:black">AGREE...</span></b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:79px"><span style="page:WordSection11"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><shape filled="f" id="_x0000_s2064" stroked="f" style="position:absolute; margin-left:518px; margin-top:1px; width:25.3pt; height:16pt; z-index:-251643904" type="#_x0000_t202"><textbox inset="0,0,0,0"></textbox></shape></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="page:WordSection11"><wrap anchorx="margin" type="square"><span style="display: none;"> </span><span style="display: none;"> </span><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><span style="color:black">HON. MR. JUSTICE EKUNDAYO E. ROBERTS</span></b></span></wrap></span></p> <p> </p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:4px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><span style="color:black">I AGREE</span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:99px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><shape filled="f" id="_x0000_s2065" stroked="f" style="position:absolute; margin-left:519px; width:25.3pt; height:16pt; z-index:-251642880" type="#_x0000_t202"><textbox inset="0,0,0,0"></textbox></shape></span></span></span></p> <p><wrap anchorx="margin" type="square"><span style="display: none;"> </span><span style="display: none;"> </span><img align="left" hspace="63" src="file:///C:/Users/DELL/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image027.jpg" style="margin-left:-40px; margin-right:40px; margin-bottom:27px; width:363px; height:1px" /><shape filled="f" id="_x0000_s2067" stroked="f" style="position:absolute; margin-left:-10px; margin-top:120px; width:348.65pt; height:17.1pt; z-index:251675648" type="#_x0000_t202"><textbox inset="0,0,0,0"><wrap anchorx="margin"></wrap></textbox></shape></wrap></p> <p> </p> <p><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><span style="color:black">HON. MR JUSTICE ALUSINE S. SESAY</span></b></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><span style="color:black">JSC</span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p></p></div> <p> </p> <div class="WordSection12"> <p style="margin-top:2px; margin-bottom:2px"> </p> </div> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p style="margin-bottom:44px"> </p> <p> </p> </div> <div class="views-element-container"><div class="view view-eva view-download-conditional view-id-download_conditional view-display-id-entity_view_1 js-view-dom-id-6416d28973755d5a1176f4c6bfd4d462073c60411079cf35e326d2e576177669"> <div><div class="views-field views-field-views-conditional-field"><span class="field-content"><div class="WordSection1"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:3px"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:358.5pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><span style="color:black">SC 11/2020                                                                              </span></b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:29px"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><u><span style="color:black">IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SIERRA LEONE (ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)</span></u></b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:center; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:125%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><span style="color:black">IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 21 OF THE 1991 CONSTITUTION OF THE<br /> REPUBLIC OF SIERRA LEONE ACT NO. 6 OF 1991</span></b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:center; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:125%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><span style="color:black">IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 124(1) OF THE 1991 CONSTITUTION OF<br /> SIERRA LEONE OF THE REPUBLIC OF SIERRA LEONE ACT NO. 6 OF<br /> 1991</span></b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:103px; text-indent:-70.0pt; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><span style="color:black">IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 127 OF THE 1991 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SIERRA LEONE ACT NO. 6 OF 1991</span></b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:center; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><span style="color:black">IN THE MATTER OF PART XVI RULES 88-98 OF THE SUPREME COURT<br /> RULES 1982</span></b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:center; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:127%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><span style="color:black">IN THE MATTER OF ORDER 43<br /> OF THE HIGH COURT RULES 2007</span></b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:3px"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><span style="color:black">BETWEEN: </span></b><span style="color:black">MUSTAPHA ABU TARRAF</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:3px; margin-left:103px"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">(Suing as the Attorney of Mohamed Kamel Wanza)</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:3px; margin-left:103px"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><shape filled="f" id="_x0000_s2050" stroked="f" style="position:absolute; left:0; text-align:left; margin-left:539px; margin-top:1px; width:85.7pt; height:34.4pt; z-index:-251658240" type="#_x0000_t202"><textbox inset="0,0,0,0"></textbox></shape></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="page:WordSection1"><wrap anchorx="margin" side="left" type="square"><span style="display: none;"> </span><span style="display: none;"> </span><shape filled="f" id="_x0000_s2051" stroked="f" style="position:absolute; left:0; text-align:left; margin-left:539px; margin-top:98px; width:89.1pt; height:70.75pt; z-index:-251657216" type="#_x0000_t202"><textbox inset="0,0,0,0"></textbox></shape></wrap></span></p> <table width="100%"><tbody><tr><td> <div> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:52px"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="color:black">2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant</span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="color:black">3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant</span></span></p> </div> </td> </tr></tbody></table><p> <wrap anchorx="margin" side="left" type="square"></wrap><span style="display: none;"> </span><span style="display: none;"> </span></p> <p><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><span style="color:black">AND: </span></b><span style="color:black">DR. DENNIS M. SANDY                                  1st Plaintiff</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:103px; text-indent:1.0pt"> </p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:103px; text-indent:1.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:120%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">THE DIRECTOR</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:103px; text-indent:1.0pt; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:120%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">OF SURVEYS AND LANDS</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:103px; text-indent:1.0pt; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:120%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND MINISTER OF JUSTICE</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:125%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><span style="color:black">C<u>ORAM</u></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="Tableofcontents0" style="text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:358.5pt"><span style="line-height:125%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="Tableofcontents" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">HON. MR. JUSTICE EKUNDAYO E. ROBERTS                      JSC</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="Tableofcontents0" style="text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:358.5pt"><span style="line-height:125%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="Tableofcontents" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">HON. MR JUSTICE ALLAN B. HALLOWAY                              JSC</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="Tableofcontents0" style="text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:358.5pt"><span style="line-height:125%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="Tableofcontents" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">HON. MR JUSTICE ALUSINE S. SESAY                                 JSC</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="Tableofcontents0" style="margin-bottom:24px; text-indent:7.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:right 387.05pt"><span style="line-height:125%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="Tableofcontents" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">HON. MR JUSTICE MANGAY F. DEEN-TARAWALLY JSC HON. MR JUSTICE M. SENGU KOROMA                                                                    JSC</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:3px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><u><span style="color:black">COUNSEL</span></u></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-indent:7.0pt; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">P. LAMBERT ESQ. &amp; E. PAPS-GARNON ESQ for the Plaintiff/Applicant O.l KANU ESQ. &amp; A. CONTEH ESQ. for the Defendants/Respondents</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><u><span style="color:black">RULING/JUDGEMENT</span></u></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:24px"><u><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:218.5pt lined 288.2pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><span style="color:black">Delivered this 25 day of October 2021</span></b></span></span></span></span></span></u></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">The application herein, dated the 30<sup>th</sup> October 2020 and made by MUSTAPHA ABU TARRAF, as the Attorney of MOHAMED KAMEL WANZA, seek answers to the following questions and pray for certain reliefs, pursuant to Section 28 and 124 of the CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE 1991 namely:</span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:9px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="tab-stops:37.25pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><a name="bookmark0" id="bookmark0"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Whether all that property situate, lying and being at Peninsula Road, Sussex in the Western Area of Sierra Leone, more particularly described and delineated on the survey plan numbered LS 1631/90, being claimed by the Defendants/Respondents is State Land in accordance with the definition in Section 2 of the <b>STATE LANDS ACT 1960 </b>or any other legislation in Sierra Leone?</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:9px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:37.25pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><a name="bookmark1" id="bookmark1"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Whether the entering upon the Plaintiff/Applicant’s property aforesaid, by the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants/Respondents with a group of armed men chasing the workers and security guards, putting up a sign board with the inscription ‘THIS IS STATE LAND’, is in accordance with the process of compulsory acquisition of property by the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE, as provided for under Section 21 of the <b>CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE 1991?</b></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:9px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:120%"><span style="tab-stops:37.25pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><a name="bookmark2" id="bookmark2"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Whether the acquisition aforesaid, be it purported or not and the taking of possession of all that property aforesaid, is in compliance with Section 21 of the <b>CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE 1991 </b>and or in compliance with the <b>PUBLIC LANDS ACT CHAPTER 116 OF THE LAWS OF SIERRA LEONE 1960 </b>as amended?</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:35px; margin-left:9px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:37.25pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><a name="bookmark3" id="bookmark3"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Whether the actions of the 1<sup>st</sup> and the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants/Respondents amounts to depriving the Plaintiff/Applicant of the use and enjoyment of his property, the piece or parcel of land and hereditaments aforesaid?</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:17px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">The Plaintiff/Applicant pray that, in the event that the answers to questions, 1,2 and 3 are in the negative and the answer to question 4 is in the affirmative, this Court makes the following Declarations and Orders the following reliefs:</span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:9px; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:37.25pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><a name="bookmark4" id="bookmark4"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">A Declaration that the 1<sup>st</sup> and the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants/Respondent have violated the rights of MOHAMED KAMEL WANZA, the plaintiff herein, contained in Section 21 of the <b>CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA</b></span></span></span></span></span></span> <span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><span style="color:black">LEONE, 1991 </span></b><span style="color:black">in that, DR DENNIS M. SANDY, THE MINISTER OF LANDS, HOUSING AND COUNTRY PLANNING, THE DIRECTOR OF SUEVEYS AND LANDS in the MINISTRY OF LANDS, HOUSING AND COUNTRY PLANNING and the ATTORNEY GENERAL AND MINISTER OF JUSTICE, the Defendants/Respondents herein have forcibly and forcefully and without lawful excuse or authority laid hold of and unlawfully seized and laid claim to all that piece of parcel of land situate, lying and being at Peninsula Road, Sussex in the Western Area of Sierra Leone, the same whereof is owned legally and beneficially by the said Plaintiff/Applicant, the person entitled to possession of the same and who has been the person possessed of and otherwise well and sufficiently entitled to possession of the same for upwards of Thirty (30) years last past at least.</span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:4px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.3pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><a name="bookmark5" id="bookmark5"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">A Declaration that the said acts and actions and the several written and oral declarations of the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants/Respondents are tantamount to a violent wrongful and unlawful deprivation of the property rights of the said Plaintiff/Applicant contrary to the provisions of Section 21 of the <b>CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE 1991 </b>and that the said acts and Declarations of the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants/Respondents are not sanctioned or authorized by the said Constitution nor by the <b>PUBLIC LANDS ACT CHAPTER 16 of the LAWS OF SIERRA LEONE 1960 as </b>amended, nor by any other law or nor by custom or nor by convention.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="tab-stops:36.3pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><a name="bookmark6" id="bookmark6"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">A Declaration that the acts of violence, the use of force perpetrated and</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:17px; margin-left:44px; text-align:justify; text-indent:2.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="tab-stops:405.8pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">utilized by the 1<sup>st</sup> and the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants/Respondents with the aid and assistance of armed personnel at the Plaintiff/Applicant’s piece or parcel of land aforesaid in the full view of onlookers, amounts to a breach of the peace in terms of the <b>PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1965 </b>as amended, the state of Emergency which now exists in Sierra Leone and a violent contravention of the oath taken by the said 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd </sup>Defendant/Respondent on the occasion of his being sworn in as a Minister with Cabinet rank by His Excellency, the President of Sierra Leone, which oath is contained in the Third Schedule to the <b>CONSTITUTION </b>aforesaid specifically, the portion where he swore '.... <b>I will support, uphold and maintain the CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE as by law established, so help me God’.                                                </b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="4"><li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:4px; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="tab-stops:36.3pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><a name="bookmark7" id="bookmark7"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">A Declaration that the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent has grossly the provisions of Section 62 of the <b>CONSTITUTION OF</b></span></span></span></span></span></span> <span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:125%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><span style="color:black">1991, </span></b><span style="color:black">in that contrary to the provisions of that Section, he has himself together with others authorized by him, embarked unlawfully on an enterprise which is outside the remit of his office, namely proceeding with armed personnel in a piece or parcel of land owed by a private individual, namely the Plaintiff/Applicant herein, to forcibly seize and take control of the said piece or parcel of land without lawful authority thereby unlawfully wrestling away the powers conferred on the Permanent Secretary, in the Ministry of Lands to supervise the daily and physical activities of the said Ministry.</span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="tab-stops:32.85pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><a name="bookmark8" id="bookmark8"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">A Declaration that the unlawful actions and declarations of the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent in relation to the Plaintiff/Applicant’s ownership of the piece or parcel of land aforesaid are against public policy, in that such actions will encourage the ordinary voting public to believe that, it is permissible conduct for an individual without the support of the law or an order of the Court, to violently take possession of another person’s land.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="tab-stops:32.85pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><a name="bookmark9" id="bookmark9"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">A Declaration that the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent’s conduct, actions, words and declarations during his violent attacks on the said property of the Plaintiff/Applicant are not sanctioned nor authorized by any law in force in Sierra Leone. And that if such actions are not stopped, they may result in eternal conflicts between law abiding and law-breaking citizens of this peaceful country.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:120%"><span style="tab-stops:32.85pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><a name="bookmark10" id="bookmark10"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">A Declaration that the action of the Defendants/Respondents is unconstitutional and amounts to the deprivation of the right to property of the Plaintiff/Applicant and in contravention of Section 21 of the <b>CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE 1991 </b>and its related processes.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:8px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:32.85pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><a name="bookmark11" id="bookmark11"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">A Declaration that the Plaintiff/Applicant’s piece of parcel of land, situate, lying and being at Peninsula Road, Sussex measuring about 9.3019 acres in area is private land belonging to him and based on Deed of Conveyance made between GHAZI R. FAIAD and MOHAMED KAMEL WANZA dated 15<sup>th</sup> November 1990 and registered as No. 1602/90 at page 49 in Volume 444 of the Books of Conveyances kept in the office of the Registrar General at Walpole Street Freetown and Judgements of both the High Court of Sierra Leone, delivered on the 23<sup>rd</sup> March 1994 and the 26<u><sup>th</sup></u> April 2016 and the Court of Appeal of Sierra Leone delivered on the 12th </span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">October 1999.</span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:35px; margin-left:25px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:125%"><span style="tab-stops:48.45pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><a name="bookmark12" id="bookmark12"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">A perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants/Respondents and their successors in office and their servants or agents from entering upon and claiming the Plaintiff/Applicant’s piece or parcel of land aforesaid as State Land or in any manner whatsoever, from interfering with its use and enjoyment by the Plaintiff/Applicant.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:35px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:125%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><a name="bookmark13" id="bookmark13"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Damages to be paid by the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants/Respondents for the trespass and the contravention of the Plaintiff/Applicant’s fundamental right provided for by Section 21 of the <b>CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE 1991.</b></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:35px; margin-left:19px; text-align:justify; text-indent:10.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">11 .Any further order or reliefs as this Court may deem fit and just</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:35px; text-align:justify; text-indent:23.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">12.Costs</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:19px; text-align:justify; text-indent:3.0pt; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">In support of the application aforesaid, is the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU- TARRAF sworn to on the 30<sup>th</sup> October 2020, to which several exhibits are annexed including the following:</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:19px; text-align:justify; text-indent:3.0pt; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Exhibit <b>‘MAT 1’ </b>being a Power of Attorney executed by MOHAMED KAMEL WANZA, the Plaintiff/Applicant herein, on the 13<sup>th</sup> April 2011 nominating, appointing and constituting MUSTAPHA ABU-TARRAF as his Attorney,</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:19px; text-align:justify; text-indent:3.0pt; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Exhibit <b>‘MAT 2’ </b>being a Deed of Conveyance dated the 15<sup>th</sup> November 1990, expressed to be made between MOHAMED GHAZI RACHED FAIAD and the Plaintiff/Applicant herein, duly registered as No. 1602/90 at page 49 in Volume 444 in the Book of Conveyances kept in the Office of the Registrar General in Freetown, in respect of the piece or parcel of land situated at Peninsula Road, Sussex, in the Western Area of Sierra Leone the same delineated on survey plan dated 27<sup>th</sup> July 1990 and numbered LS 1737/90, plot 1 measuring 8.0549 acres in area and Plot 2 measuring 1.2470 acres in area, the said survey plan which had been earlier approved as private property of MOHAMED GHAZI RACHED FAIAD by a survey plan dated 6<sup>th</sup> July 1990 and numbered LS 1631/90 and marked Exhibit <b>‘MAT 3’,</b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:35px; margin-left:19px; text-align:justify; text-indent:3.0pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Exhibit <b>‘MAT 5’ </b>is a Judgement of the High Court dated 22<sup>nd</sup> March 1994, confirming a grant to the Plaintiff/Applicant that he Recovers Possession of the piece or parcel of land aforesaid, the said Judgement of the was upheld at the Court of Appeal as seen in Exhibit <b>‘MAT 6’,</b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:125%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Exhibit <b>‘MAT 8’ </b>is a Judgement of the High Court dated the 28<sup>th</sup> April 2016, adopting the terms of settlement of the matter, Misc. App 223/09 dated 23<sup>rd </sup>March 2016, the same which inter alia, repeats the acknowledgment that MOHAMED KAMEL WANZA, the Plaintiff/Applicant is the bona fide fee simple owner entitled to permanent ownership and possession of the piece and parcel of land situate at Peninsula Road Sussex Village in the Western Area of Sierra Leone delineated on survey plan dated 27<sup>th</sup> July 1990 and numbered LS 1737/90, Plot 1 measuring 8.0549 acres in area and Plot 2 measuring 1.2470 acres in area, the said survey plan attached to Deed of Conveyance dated 15<sup>th </sup>November 1990 and registered as No. 1602/90 at page 49 in Volume 444 of the Book of Conveyances kept in the Office of the Registrar General in Freetown,</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Exhibit <b>‘MAT 10’ </b>is a letter dated 6<sup>th</sup> July 2020, on the subject <b>‘PROPERTY SITUATED AT PENINSULA ROAD SUSSEX FREETOWN BELONGING TO MOHAMED KAMEL WANZA’ </b>from OSMAN I. KANU, Principal State Counsel in the Law Officers Department writing for and on behalf of the Attorney General and Minister of Justice on the subject <b>PERSISTENT TRESPASS ON LAND SITAUTED AT PEINNSULA ROAD, SUSSEX FREETOWN BELONGING TO MOHAMED KAMEL WANZA’, </b>addressed to PATRICK LAMBERT, the same confirming that the piece or parcel of land aforesaid, is not State Land and is the private property of the Plaintiff/Applicant herein,</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:120%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Exhibit <b>‘MAT 11’ </b>is a letter dated 17<sup>th</sup> July 2020, from LAMBERT AND PARTNERS, Solicitors for the Plaintiff/Applicant, addressed to the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent warning him to desist from trespassing on the piece or parcel of land aforesaid and to stop using men and dressed in purported police and military fatigue to forcefully enter the property aforesaid and put the lives of staff employed by the Plaintiff/Applicant to safeguard the said property at risk, failing which, the Plaintiff/Applicant will take immediate action against the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent in order to protect the said Plaintiff/Applicant’s legal rights and interest in the property aforesaid under the Laws of Sierra Leone,</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Exhibit <b>‘MAT 12’ </b>is a letter dated 6<sup>th</sup> August 2018, on the subject <b>TRESPASS ON LAND SITUATED AT PEINNSULA ROAD, SUSSEX FREETOWN BELONGING TO MOHAMED KAMEL WANZA’ </b>from LAMBERT &amp; PARTNERS, addressed to the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent informing him that the property aforesaid, is not State Land and that his actions amount to Trespass and constitute malicious damage of private property,</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:125%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Exhibit <b>‘MAT 13’ </b>is a letter dated 14<sup>th</sup> August 2020, on the subject <b>‘PROPERTY SITUATED AT PENINSULA ROAD SUSSEX FREETOWN BELONGING TO MOHAMED KAMEL WANZA’ </b>from the office of the ATTORNEY GENERAL &amp; MINISTER OF JUSTICE addressed to the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent in which the Attorney General and Minister of Justice unequivocally stated that, the piece or parcel of land situated at Peninsula Road aforesaid is private land, the Courts having confirmed and recognized that the same belongs to the Plaintiff/Applicant herein,</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Exhibits <b>‘MAT 14’ </b>and <b>‘MAT 15<sup>1-34</sup>’ </b>are photographs depicting the Plaintiff/Applicant’s claim that on the instructions of the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent, persons who entered the piece is parcel of land with the said 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent wrote ‘stop work’ on the gate of the said property and are photographs depicting the trespass and malicious damage on the said property,</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Exhibit <b>‘MAT 16’ </b>is a letter dated 25<sup>th</sup> August 2020, on the subject <b>‘PROPERTY SITUATED AT PENINSULA ROAD SUSSEX FREETOWN BELONGING TO MOHAMED KAMEL WANZA’ </b>from LAMBERT &amp; PARTNERS addressed to the Attorney General and Minister of Justice reporting the matter aforesaid and pleading with him to prevent further trespass on the Plaintiff/Applicant’s property by the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent, under the guise of acting for and on behalf of the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE,</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Exhibit <b>‘MAT 18’ </b>is a letter dated 4<sup>th</sup> September 2020, on the subject <b>‘PROPERTY SITUATED AT PENINSULA ROAD SUSSEX FREETOWN BELONGING TO MOHAMED KAMEL WANZA’ </b>from the Attorney General and Minister of Justice addressed to the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent, reminding him that the land in question is privately owned as adjudged by the Superior Courts of Judicature in Sierra Leone particularly, the Court of Appeal and the High Court, by which the said piece of land was declared a private land, belonging to MOHAMED KAMEL WANZA, the Plaintiff/Applicant herein, requesting the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent further to refrain from his conduct on the same and also to show respect to the laws of the land and adherence to the Judgements as pronounced by the Courts,</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:125%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Exhibits <b>‘MAT 19’ </b>and <b>‘MAT 20’ </b>is a storage pin being a video relating to one of the violent attacks by the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent Plaintiff/Applicant’s property aforesaid, which said attacks took</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:125%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">October 2020 and photos of the violent attacks aforesaid showing the demolition and destruction of the structures on the said property,</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">In further support of the application herein is the supplemental affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU TARRAF sworn to on the 9<sup>th</sup> November 2020. Annexed to the same are the following Exhibits,</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Exhibit <b>‘MAT 22’ </b>being a report dated 21<sup>st</sup> April 2020, done by SYLVANUS A. LUSANIE, Licensed Surveyor on an investigation of the property at Peninsula Road, Sussex Village aforesaid, the subject matter of the application herein,</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:125%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Exhibits <b>‘MAT 29’, ‘MAT 31’ </b>and <b>‘MAT 32’ </b>are the title Deeds of the Plaintiff/Applicant’s predecessors in title in respect of the property at Peninsula Road, Sussex Village aforesaid.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Further to the filing of the application herein by way of an Originating Notice of Motion dated 30<sup>th</sup> October 2020, an Interlocutory Injunction restraining the Defendants/Respondents herein, whether by themselves, their servants, agents and privies from entering on, dealing or interfering with or selling or disposing of the buildings on the piece or parcel of land at Peninsula Road, Sussex Village in the Western Area of Sierra Leone, which is the subject matter of the application herein, was granted on the 10<sup>th</sup> February 2021 pending the hearing and determination of the said application on terms that the Plaintiff/Applicant herein files an undertaking in damages should it turn out that the Interlocutory Injunction aforesaid, ought not to have been granted, the said undertaking in damages which was filed by the Plaintiff/Applicant on the 16<sup>th</sup> February 2021.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">By reason of the Defendants/Respondents’ failure to comply with the conditions requiring them to file their statement of case, imposed upon them under Rule 92(1) and 92(2) of the <b>SUPREME COURT RUILES 1982 </b>requiring them to file their statement of case within Ten (10) days after the Originating Notice of Motion herein dated 30<sup>th</sup> October 2020 and the Plaintiff/Applicant’s statement of case dated the 9<sup>th</sup> November 2020 were served on them. Pursuant to Rule 92(3) of the <b>SUPREME COURT RUILES </b>aforesaid, the REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT issued a certificate of the Defendant/Respondents non- compliance aforesaid dated 4<sup>th</sup> March 2021, in this regard.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">As deposed to in the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU-TARRAF sworn to on the 30<sup>th</sup> October 2020, the same in support of the application herein of an Originating Notice of Motion dated 30<sup>th</sup> October 2020,</span></span></span></span></span></p> </div> <p> </p> <div class="WordSection2"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection2"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Clearly the findings above, not only casts considerable doubts as to the veracity of the findings as contained in Exhibit <b>‘MAT 25’ </b>aforesaid and erodes the integrity and confidence placed in the expertise of the officials of the Ministry, it makes a complete nonsense of Exhibit <b>‘MAT 25’ </b>making the same a completely worthless and useless piece of document. It is obvious then that, if officials of the Ministry of Lands were to proceed to use the same questionable documents above which is stated above would have been the same documents submitted as regards the reports made against him by the said PHILIP NEVILLE and confirmed as is seen in Exhibit <b>‘MAT 24’ </b>to conclude the said report made against ANTHONY SAMU, the said officials of the Ministry of Lands would have been forced to come out with a conclusion similar to the one regarding the report made by ANTHONY SAMU against REV. DAVID CHAMBERS. This Court holds the view that by reason of all the circumstances outlined above, the said officials of the Ministry of Lands would definitely have been unable to declare ANTHONY SAMU the owner of the property at Sussex Village aforesaid, the subject matter of the application herein, the same which would have been contradictory to their first expert opinion given. It cannot be disputed therefore that because they knew that they would contradict themselves as regards their expert opinion as to the ownership of the property aforesaid, their failure to give any expert opinion on the request made by the Police regarding the complaint made by PHILIP NEVILLE against ANTHONY SAMU was deliberate, surreptitious and extremely unprofessional.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection2"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">This Court holds the view that, it is obvious from the above analysis that, undisputedly, a judicious claim for ownership of the property at Sussex Village, the subject matter of the application herein, would definitely not even be attempted by REV. DAVID CHAMBERS against the Plaintiff/Applicant herein, or any other contender who claims ownership of the property aforesaid, since such judicious claim would woefully fail even before it would have started. Irrefutable proof if this Courts view above aforesaid, could be found in the fact ' as incontrovertibly and substantially deposed in the affidavit of MUSTAPHA</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection2"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><shape filled="f" id="_x0000_s2053" stroked="f" style="position:absolute; left:0; text-align:left; margin-left:575px; margin-top:25px; width:79pt; height:74.15pt; z-index:-251655168" type="#_x0000_t202"><textbox inset="0,0,0,0"></textbox></shape></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="page:WordSection2"><wrap anchorx="margin" side="left" type="square"><span style="display: none;"> </span><span style="display: none;"> </span><shape filled="f" id="_x0000_s2054" stroked="f" style="position:absolute; left:0; text-align:left; margin-left:645px; margin-top:49px; width:27pt; height:52.9pt; z-index:-251654144" type="#_x0000_t202"><textbox inset="0,0,0,0"></textbox></shape></wrap></span></p> <table width="100%"><tbody><tr><td> <div> <p align="right" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:4px; text-align:right"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="color:black">that</span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:4px; text-align:right"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="color:black">1<sup>st</sup></span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:4px; text-align:right"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="color:black">the</span></span></p> </div> </td> </tr></tbody></table><p> <wrap anchorx="margin" side="left" type="square"></wrap><span style="display: none;"> </span><span style="display: none;"> </span><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="background:white"><span style="color:black">ABU TARRAF, that the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent on his several visits and encounters on the property aforesaid as outlined above, he accompanied by REV. DAVID CHAMBERS. Certainly, it cannot REV. DAVID CHAMBERS was seen in the company Defendant/Respondent in such circumstance aforesaid, to assist the </span></span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13pt;">GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE through the 1</span><sup style="color: black; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">st</sup><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13pt;"> Defendant/Respondent to compulsorily acquire or allegedly reclaim the property aforesaid as state land. Obviously, the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE has its own resources in this regard, such resources which certainly do not include REV. DAVID CHAMBERS. </span><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13pt; text-align: justify;">The presence of REV. DAVID CHAMBERS in the so-called compulsory acquisition of or the alleged reclaiming of the property aforesaid as State Land would be fully explained hereunder at some other stage. What is relevant here is the fact that if the above was an attempt to claim the ownership of the property aforesaid judiciously, REV DAVID CHAMBERS would not have been in the company of the 1</span><sup style="color: black; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; text-align: justify;">st</sup><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13pt; text-align: justify;"> Defendant/Respondent but rather in the Courts filing papers claiming for a Declaration of the title to the said property.</span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Further proof of this Court’s view that REV. DAVID CHAMBERS would not even attempt to claim ownership of the property in question judiciously is by reason of the fact as deposed to in the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU TARRAF sworn to on the 9<sup>th</sup> November 2020, the principal documents which the said REV. DAVID CHAMBERS would have used to judiciously bring a claim for Declaration of title to the property aforesaid had been found to be unauthentic. It is seen from Exhibit <b>‘MAT 22’ </b>annexed to the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU TARRAF, the same being a report of an investigation done by S.A. LUSANIE, a Licensed Surveyor, dated 21<sup>st</sup> April 2020, regarding ownership of the property aforesaid, it was uncontrovertibly determined that the survey plan for REV. DAVID CHAMBERS were all falsified. The determination aforesaid is confirmation of the report of the Ministry of Lands of their expert opinion on the request of the Police regarding the report made by ANTHONY SAMU against REV. DAVID CHAMBERS of Trespass on the property at Sussex which is the subject matter of the application herein as seen in Exhibit <b>‘MAT 25’ </b>annexed to the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU TARRAF. Uncontrovertibly the findings as contained in Exhibit <b>‘MAT 25’ </b>aforesaid, show that the beacon numbers found in all survey plans relied upon by the said REV. DAVID CHAMBERS when plotted falls at Hill Cut Road, Freetown at Off Railway Line Tengbeh Town - Wilberforce and at Aberdeen Ferry Road Murray Town. None of the beacon numbers fall on the land at Sussex aforesaid and some could not be found in the Record Books at the Ministry of Lands.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><shape filled="f" id="_x0000_s2056" stroked="f" style="position:absolute; left:0; text-align:left; margin-left:462px; margin-top:173px; width:66.05pt; height:37.6pt; z-index:251664384" type="#_x0000_t202"><textbox inset="0,0,0,0"><wrap anchorx="margin"></wrap></textbox></shape></span></span></span></p> <p><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">It was stated above that this Court will be remiss in its duty if it simply determines that the property at Sussex Village, being the subject matter of the application herein is not State Land but privately owned, by reason that further litigation is absolutely possible after it would have determined that the said property is not State Land. The above analysis is geared to show that in so far as ownership of the property aforesaid is concerned, ANTHONY SAMU and REV. DAVID CHAMBERS are persons who are potential claimants of ownership of the said property. However, the above analysis successfully clear that both ANTHONY SAMU and REV. DAVID</span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:125%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">lack what it takes to have them judiciously declared as title owners of the property aforesaid. This Court now turns its attention to the Plaintiff/Applicant. This Court finds that the statement that, ownership of the property aforesaid has been judiciously declared and confirmed in his favor as deposed to in the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU TARRAF sworn to on the 30<sup>th</sup> October 2020 cannot be true. This however does not mean that by the evidence submitted the said Plaintiff/Applicant is not entitled to a Declaration of title in respect of the said property. It is absolutely necessary that, this Court considers the evidence on the whole and determine whether or not the Plaintiff/Applicant is entitled to such a Declaration.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">This Court holds the view that the Plaintiff/Applicant’s contention that he has been judiciously declared owner of the said property is borne out of the fact that by a Judgement of the High Court dated 28<sup>th</sup> April 2016 as seen in Exhibit <b>‘MAT8’ </b>annexed to the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU TARRAF sworn to on the 30<sup>th</sup> October 2021, the Plaintiffs in the matter between <b>ALFRED P. JOHNSON (DECEASED) &amp; ROBERT JOHNSON </b>and <b>CHARLES HUMPAH, MOHAMED GHAZI R. FAIAD &amp; MOHAMED KAMEL WANSA, </b>cited above, unanimously, voluntarily, wholly and absolutely accepted and acknowledged that the Plaintiff/Applicant herein is the bona fide fee simple owner entitled to permanent ownership and possession of the property at Sussex, the subject matter of the application herein. It cannot be disputed that the said Judgement is an expression made by the Plaintiffs in the matter aforesaid, that they do not challenge the title of the Plaintiff/Applicant herein to the property at Sussex aforesaid. In the case between <b>SORIE TARAWALLY </b>and <b>SORIE KOROMA </b>S.C CIV. APP 7/2004, in the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone (unreported), A. <b>RENNER-THOMAS CJ, </b>stated that it is not sufficient for a Plaintiff’s claim for a declaration of title to land to be supported by uncontroverted evidence simpliciter, to entitle that Plaintiff to such a declaration. He continued by saying that in a long line of cases reviewed by the Supreme Court, it has been established that in an action for a declaration of title, the Plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his title and not on the weakness of the Defendant’s title. He stated that in other words, as stated by <b>WEBBER CJ </b>in delivering the Judgement of the West African Court of Appeal in the case between <b>KODOLINYE </b>and <b>ODU </b>(1935) 5 WACA 336 at p 337 - 338,</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="tab-stops:468.2pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><i><span style="color:black">‘The onus lies on the Plaintiff to satisfy the Court that he is entitled on the evidence brought by him to a declaration of title. The Plaintiff in this case must rely on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of </span></i></b></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="tab-stops:447.65pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><i><span style="color:black">Defendant’s case. If this onus is not discharged, the weakness of the </span></i></b></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:125%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><i><span style="color:black">Defendants case will not help him and the proper judgement is for the Defendants’...</span></i></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">The pertinent question then is <b>‘what must a Plaintiff who claims or a Defendant who counter claims for a Declaration of title prove to be entitled to the same’? </b>In the case between <b>SORIE TARAWALLI </b>and <b>SORIE KOROMA </b>cited above, <b>A. RENNER-THOMAS CJ, </b>in answer to the question aforesaid, drew a distinction between a documentary or paper title on the one hand and a possessory title on the other hand stating that for a person relying on a paper title, he must be able to trace his title to some grant by the Crown or the State. It cannot be disputed that the Plaintiff/Applicant is not relying on a documentary or paper title, in which case this Court will not require him to trace his title to some grant by the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE for it to make a Declaration of title to the property aforesaid in his favor.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">On the other hand and in the case between <b>SORIE TARAWALLI </b>and <b>SORIE KOROMA </b>cited above <b>A. RENNER-THOMAS CJ </b>stated that, a Plaintiff who relies on the fact of possession by himself or his predecessors in title must prove more than just mere possession to be entitled to a declaration of title. He must prove that he has a better title not only against the Defendant but that there is no other person having a better title than himself. In answer to his question, <b>‘How then can he prove this’? A. RENNER-THOMAS CJ </b>stated that, he can do this by showing that the title of the true owner has been extinguished in his favor by the combined effect of adverse possession and the limitation statute. Section 5(3) of the <b>STATUTE OF LIMITATION ACT 1961 </b>provides as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:120%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><i><span style="color:black">’No action shall be brought by any other person to recover any land after the expiration of Twelve (12) years from the date on which the right of action accrued to him or if it first accrued to some person through who he claims to that person’.</span></i></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">In the case between <b>SORIE TARAWALLI </b>and <b>SORIE KOROMA </b>cited above, <b>A. RENNER-THOMAS CJ </b>stated that, the nature of the root of possessory title is thus explained by <b>MEGARRY </b>and <b>WADE </b>at page 1004 in the 4<sup>th</sup> Edition of <b>THE LAW OF REAL PROPERTY </b>as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:120%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><i><span style="color:black">‘Limitation is thus not per se a mode of transferring property from one person to another. But it may operate as such when combine with the principle that adverse possession gives a title. If S (squatted) wrongfully takes possession of land belonging to O (owner), O immediately acquires </span></i></b></span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><i><span style="color:black">a right of action against S for recovery of land. If O takes no action in Twelve (12) years (normally) his right of action becomes barred and his title extinguished by limitation. S can no longer be disturbed by O and as against all the world except someone having a better legal right to possession’.</span></i></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:23px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">In his statement of case dated 9<sup>th</sup> November 2020, submitted to this Court for and on behalf of the Plaintiff/Applicant, P. LAMBERT ESQ. submitted at paragraph 18, page 6 of the same that this Court will note and it so notes that the predecessors in title of GHAZI R. FAIAD, the immediate predecessor in title to the property at Sussex which is the subject matter of the application herein, do not have any documentary title for the property which they sold to him and that their title is possessory. Notwithstanding his submission aforesaid, this Court holds the view that it would be absolutely incorrect to say that the Plaintiff/Applicant herein or his predecessors in title relies on the fact of possession, by reason that, from the evidence adduced herein in its entirety, it is conclusive of the fact that the property at Sussex, the subject matter of the application herein was not acquired by neither the Plaintiff/Applicant nor his predecessors in title by adverse possession, in which case, the requirement that the Plaintiff/Applicant must show that the title of the true owner has been extinguished in his favor by the combined effect of adverse possession and Section 5(3) of the <b>STATUTE OF LIMITATION ACT 1961 </b>above, would be completely unnecessary. All that the Plaintiff/Applicant would be required to show in this case, is by tracing his title to the property aforesaid, to the true owner.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">It is seen from ‘Exhibits <b>MAT 29, 30, 31 </b>and <b>32’, </b>annexed to the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU TARRAF sworn to on the 9<sup>th</sup> November 2020, that MOHAMED GHAZI FAIAD, the Plaintiff/Applicant’s immediate predecessor in title to the property at Sussex Village, subject matter of the application herein, purchased part of the said property from THEOPHILUS MASON and the rest from JANET JOHNSON. As seen from Exhibit <b>‘MAT 32’ </b>aforesaid, the portion of the said property which THEOPHILUS MASON sold to MOHAMED GHAZI FAIAD was conveyed to him, the said THEOPHILUS MASON by way of a Deed of Gift by JANET JOHNSON on the 2<sup>nd</sup> March 1989, the said THEOPHILUS MASON who in turn conveyed the same to MOHAMED GHAZI FAIAD on the 6<sup>th</sup> March 1989 as seen from Exhibit <b>‘MAT 29’ </b>supplemental to which is a Conveyance dated the 31<sup>st</sup> October 1990, as seen in Exhibit ‘MAT30 of the said property sold to MOHAMED GHAZI FAIAD was <b>conveyed by Janet</b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">MASON on the 11<sup>th</sup> July 1990 as seen in Exhibit <b>‘MAT 31’  </b>aforesaid it cannot </span></span><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">be disputed that the original owner of the entire property aforesaid was JANET JOHNSON who conveyed parts of it to THEOPHILUS MASON byway of a Deed of. Gift on the 2<sup>nd</sup> March 1989 as seen in Exhibit <b>‘MAT 32’ </b>aforesaid and conveyed the rest to GHAZI R. FAIAD on the 11<sup>th</sup> July 1989 as seen in Exhibit <b>‘MAT 31’. </b>In both Exhibits <b>‘MAT 31’ </b>and <b>‘MAT 32’, </b>parts of the recitals state that JANET JOHNSON as at the 11<sup>th</sup> July 1989 and the 2<sup>nd</sup> March 1989 respectively, had been seized of or otherwise well and sufficiently entitled to the property at Sussex aforesaid, which is the subject matter of the application herein having been in full, free undisturbed and uninterrupted possession thereof for a period of well over forty (40) years.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">There is absolutely no evidence disputing the fact that the said JANET JOHNSON had been in possession of the said property for over forty (40) years prior to the 11<sup>th</sup> July 1989. There is further, absolutely no evidence adduced showing that her possession thereof was interrupted by anyone during this period. It also cannot be disputed that, in view of the circumstances aforesaid, JANET JOHNSON can be considered the <b>‘TRUE OWNER’ </b>of the property aforesaid, having undisputedly shown long and uninterrupted possession of the same, notwithstanding the fact that she had no documents of title in respect of the said property. Notwithstanding the fact, that the Plaintiff/Applicant would successfully be able to trace his title to the property aforesaid, to the true owner of the same, he would still have to show how he can be declared the owner of the said property which is the subject matter of the application herein, when the true owner of the said property has long and uninterrupted possession but had no documents of title. In this regard, there is yet one more situation existing in the applicable law in Sierra Leone where title to land in the Western Area can be acquired by long possession without any documents of title to show for such long possession. The following comment by <b>LIVESEY-LUKE CJ </b>in the course of his Judgement in the case between <b>SEYMOR WILSON </b>and <b>MUSA ABESS </b>cited above is appropriate in this regard:</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:449.3pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><i><span style="color:black">"... It is a matter of common knowledge that most of the lands in the Western Area outside the city of Freetown are based on possessory title and most of them are not covered by any title deeds. That situation is the result of the history of land holding established in the Western Area about two centuries ago. The system which has been in operation in the Western Area since founding of the colony (now Western Area) is that land passes within the same family from one generation to another, in many cases without the existence off any document of title. Indeed the court in Sierra </span></i></b></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><i><span style="color:black">Leone have on innumerable occasion decided in favor  of the owner of</span></i><span style="color:black"> a </span></b></span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><i><span style="color:black">possessory title without documents of titles, as against the holders of registered Conveyances’.</span></i></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:25px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">In the 1<sup>st</sup> Edition of <b>LAND TENURE IN SIERRA LEONE </b>by ADE RENNER- <b>THOMAS on ‘LONG POSSESSION AND THE ACQUISITION OF TITLE TO LAND IN THE WESTERN AREA’ </b>under the rubric <b>‘Introduction’ </b>at paragraph 5.4.1, page 126, it is stipulated that, these very revealing words of LIVESEY- <b>LUKE CJ </b>above, confirm the fact that in the Western Area of Sierra Leone, judicial recognition has long been given to evidence of possession as a means of establishing title to land in this part of the country. It cannot be disputed that the property which is the subject matter of the application herein is situated at Sussex Village in the Western Area of Sierra Leone outside the city of Freetown. It cannot be disputed further that the Plaintiff/Applicant purchased the said property from GHAZI RACHED FAIAD who in turn bought the same from JANET JOHNSON and THEOPHILUS MASON. It cannot be disputed also that before executing a Deed of Gift in favor of her son THEOPHILUS MASON who in turn executed a Conveyance in favor of the said GHAZI RACHED FAIAD and before executing a Conveyance in favor of the said GHAZI RACHED FAIAD, JANET JOHNSON had no document of title to the property aforesaid. It cannot be disputed that JANET JOHNSON was a resident of Sussex Village and had been, in possession of the said property for upwards of forty (40) years prior to 1989. It cannot be disputed further that, the said JANET JOHNSON had been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the same during this period. It cannot be disputed also that that there is no evidence contradicting the fact that prior to JANET JOHONSON obtaining possession of the said property, it was her parents or other relatives who were in possession of the same. These undisputed facts being the case and in line with the comments made by <b>LIVESEY-LUKE CJ </b>in the case between <b>SEYMOUR WILSON </b>and <b>MUSA ABESS </b>cited above, it is apparent that, the Court would in the circumstance declare ownership of the property aforesaid in favor of the Plaintiff/Applicant whose predecessors-in-title had possessory title to the said property without documents of title of any kind. In the case between MOHAMED GHAZI R. <b>FAIAD &amp; ANOTHER and the ATTORNEY GENERAL AND MINISTER OF JUSTICE &amp; ANOTHER </b>S.C 6/2009 in the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone (unreported), <b>G.B SEMAGA-JANNEH JSC </b>had this to say: <b><i>’the Plaintiff’s title is traced through a chain of conveyance, about four (4) in number spanning from the 29<sup>th</sup> April 1981 to the 28<sup>th</sup> Februju^1997. The Plaintiffs had several predecessors-in-title and have b^rrTng5os^ssion in excess of forty (40) years. During the period the land completely</i></b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><i><span style="color:black">developed with structures and chalets and the premises for a considerable period of time was operated as a hotel paying outgoings, rates and taxes without let or hindrance or by anyone until the advent of the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant in the scene. Prior to the Conveyance of the suit land to CORNELIUS AUGUSTINE HARDING, the suit land was in the possession of the villages of Tokeh in the Western Region. It is a historical fact that such lands were and continued, in the possession of the villages and used by village family units or village individuals or communally for residence, farming, commence etc. It is irrelevant for the discourse on possession or ownership, whether the suit land is labelled ‘community land’. In my view it is the historical realities that mattered. I am therefore of the considered opinion that the villagers of Tokeh, by their representatives had title which they properly passed unto HON. MR. JUSTICE CONELIUS AUGUSTINE HARDING’.</span></i></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">By reason of the above, the Plaintiffs in the case aforesaid, were declared the fee simple owners of the suit land aforesaid, by the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone. Likewise in the matter herein, this Court holds the view that the Plaintiff/Applicant is entitled to be declared the fee simple owner of the property at Peninsula Road, Sussex in the Western Area of Sierra Leone, delineated on survey plan dated 27<sup>th</sup> July 1990 and numbered LS 1737/90, the same being a certified true copy of survey plan numbered LS 1631/90, by this Court. Consequently in answer to the question asked of this Court, whether the property aforesaid is ‘STATE LAND’ in accordance with the definition of Section 2 of the STATE LANDS ACT 1960 or any other legislation in Sierra Leone, this Court emphatically states that the said property is not ‘STATE LAND’ and is privately owned by MOHAMED KAMEL WANZA the Plaintiff/Applicant herein. Having answered the above question, this Court now turns i:s attention to answering the question whether the entering upon the Plaintiff/Applicant’s property as determined aforesaid, by the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants/Respondents with a group of armed men, chasing the workers and security guards employed by the said Plaintiff/Applicant and putting up a sign board with the inscription ‘THIS LAND IS STATE LAND’ and whether the acquisition aforesaid, be it purported or not and the taking of possession of all that property aforesaid, is in accordance with the process of compulsory acquisition of property by the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE as provided under Section 21 of the <b>CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE 1231 </b>and or in compliance with the <b>PUBLIC LANDS ACT, CHAPTER 116 of the LAWS OF SIERRA LEONE 1960 </b>as amended.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:25px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:125%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">It should be pointed out at the very onset that, the uncontroverted conduct of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent outlined above, cannot be a situation where the same is likened to him reclaiming State Land. It has been determined above that since upwards of forty (40) years before 1989 when possession of the said property was in the hands of JANET JOHNSON and the villagers of Sussex Village, the same had always been privately owned. It cannot be disputed that all throughout the said period, not once can it be said that, it has been shown that it was at some point in time to date become State Land, which the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent now seeks to reclaim. In this regard, it would be absolutely correct to say, that the conduct of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent, amounts to a situation where land which has always being privately owned, is now sought by the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent to be converted to ‘STATE LAND’. It cannot be disputed that the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent can only do this in one of several ways including but not limited to Transferring of Defence Lands from private possession to State possession, the State reclaiming Forest Reserves, the State reclaiming Ex Railway lands in the colony, the State’s acquisition of lands by Conveyance through negotiation, the State reclaiming unoccupied lands, the State reclaiming Kroo settlements and Lumpa reservations, Confiscating lands to the State and by compulsory acquisition by the State.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:25px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:120%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Clearly the conduct of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent cannot be a situation likened to him demanding the transfer <i>of</i> Defence lands or a situation likened to him reclaiming Forest Reserves or reclaiming Ex Railway lands in the colony or reclaiming unoccupied lands or reclaiming Kroo settlements and Lumpa reservation lands, by reason that as stated above, the property at Sussex, which is the subject matter of the application herein has always been occupied and for upwards of forty (40) years prior to 1989 been private property and not Defence lands or Forest Reserves or Ex Railway lands in the colony or unoccupied lands or Kroo Settlements and Lumpa reservation lands.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:25px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="tab-stops:356.05pt 472.85pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">The conduct of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent cannot further be a situation likened to him seeking to acquire the said property by Conveyance from the Plaintiff/Applicant to the State through negotiation, simply by reason that there is absolutely no evidence of any negotiations of the sale of the said property by the said Plaintiff/Applicant to the State. Consequently, the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent’s conduct can only be likened to a situation where he seeks to confiscate lands to the State or seeks to compulsorily acquire lands to the State. The relevant consideration in this regard is whether either of what the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent sought aforesaid was done with the relevant and applicable law. </span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">This Court upholds the submission of P. LAMBERT ESQ. of Counsel for the Plaintiff/Applicant, as contained in his statement of case dated 9<sup>th</sup> November 2020 at page 4, paragraph 12, that what the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent sought to do, was to expropriate the property aforesaid, of the Plaintiff/Applicant without the enabling legislation authorizing him to do so. This Court refers to the period 1992 to 1996 when the State of Sierra Leone was governed by the NATIONAL PROVISIONAL RULING COUNCIL (NPRC), a military Regine, governing by virtue of the NPRC PROCLAMATION 1992, which suspended in parts, the <b>CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE 1991, </b>enabling it therefore and authorized to enact laws which of necessity took away rights guaranteed by the said <b>CONSTITUTION. </b>The NPRC at time and in order to expropriate or confiscate properties belonging to certain persons enacted the <b>NPRC DECREE NO. 2 OF 1994 </b>and the <b>NPRC (EXPROPRIATION OF SPECIFIED COMPANIES) 1994, </b>to enable them to expropriate or confiscate properties belonging to certain persons. Section 3 and Section 2 of the above decrees respectively enabled the NPRC to terminate the leasehold agreements entered into between the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE and ANTOINE A.D YAZBECK in respect of the Hotels set out in the 2<sup>nd</sup> Schedule of the Decree aforesaid and enabled the NPRC to expropriate the shares of shareholders in Five (5) companies listed in the second schedule to the said Decree. On the return to democratic governance in Sierra Leone on the 2<sup>nd</sup> April 1996, the Decrees aforesaid, were expressly repealed by Section 1 and its First schedule of the <b>NPRC (REPEAL AND MODIFICATION) ACT 1996. </b>As such the expropriation and confiscation aforesaid is no longer law in Sierra Leone. Consequently, if it is the case that, by the conduct of the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent herein amounted to him expropriating or confiscating the property of the Plaintiff/Applicant, then there is no law in Sierra Leone enabling and or authorizing him to do so.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:361.45pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">It has been conclusively determined above that, the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent entered the Plaintiff/Applicant’s property aforesaid with a group of armed men, chasing the workers and security guards employed by the said Plaintiff/Applicant out of the said property and putting up a sign board with the inscription <b>‘THIS IS STATE LAND’ </b>taking away the keys to the main gate of the said property. This Court seeks to determine whether or not the acts of the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent aforesaid, are in accordance with the process of compulsory acquisition of property by the GOVERNMENT OF SI£RUAJ^ONE as provided by Section 21(1) of the CCMS7ITUTION OF the same which provides as follows:  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:25px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><i><span style="color:black">‘No property of any description shall be compulsorily taken possession of and no interest in or right over property of any description shall be compulsorily acquired, except where the taking of possession or acquisition is necessary in the interests of defense, public safety, public order, public morality, public health, town and country planning, the development or utilization of any property in such a manner as to promote the public benefit or the public welfare of citizens of Sierra Leone and the necessity therefore is such as to afford reasonable Justification for the causing of any hardship that may result to any person having any interest in or right over the property and provisions is made by law applicable to that taking of possession or acquisition for the prompt payment of adequate compensation and securing to any person having an interest in or right over the property, a right of access to a Court or other impartial and independent authority for the determination of his interest or right, the legality of the taking of possession or acquisition of the property, interest or right and the amount of any compensation to which he is entitled and for the purpose of obtaining prompt payment of that compensation’.</span></i></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:25px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Clearly, the evidence in its entirety does not show that the conduct of the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent as outlined above in detail and which said conduct, seems to be an attempt made by the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent that would amount to the compulsory taking over of possession and the interest in the property at Sussex, the subject matter of the application herein, compulsorily acquired, the compulsory taking over of possession and the compulsory acquisition aforesaid, of the interest in the property aforesaid, was necessary in the interest of Defense, public safety, public order, public morality, public health, town and country planning, the development or utilization of any property in such a manner as to promote the public benefit or public welfare of citizens of Sierra Leone. It is the case further that, the evidence adduced in its entirety does not show that by the conduct of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent aforesaid, the need for such conduct by the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent is such as to afford reasonable justification for the causing of any hardship that resulted to the Plaintiff/Applicant herein.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:25px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">It is also the case that, the evidence adduced in its entirety does not show that provision is made by law applicable to the taking of possession and acquisition aforesaid, for the prompt payment of adequate compensation ” the Plaintiff/Applicant a right of access to the Court for the de;</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">interest or right, the legality of the taking of possession or acquisition of the interest or right in the property aforesaid and the amount of any compensation to which the Plaintiff/Applicant is entitled to and for the purpose of obtaining prompt payment of that compensation. The following, <b>IN RE PUBLIC ORDINANCE and IN RE FOURAH BAY ROAD BURNT OUTREACH </b>(1950- 56) ALR SL 390 HC and <b>IN THE MATTER OF THE RAILWAY ORDINANCE (CAP 198) and IN THE MATTER OF CERTAIN LANDS SITUATE AT ROKEL </b>(1957-60) ALR SL 30 are cases in our jurisprudence dealing with the right of access to the Court for determination of the amount of any compensation and prompt payment of it when private land is compulsorily taken possession of and interests in it compulsorily acquired. The case between <b>JOHN AKAR &amp; ANOTHER </b>and <b>ATTORNEY GENERAL </b>(1950-56) ALR SL 211 HC, was an application by motion for the determination by the Court of the value of land acquired by the Colonial Government through its competent officer, the Director of Surveys and Lands under the <b>PUBLIC LANDS ORDINANCE CHAPTER </b>198 and the compensation to be paid to the claimants thereof. Having found as a fact that, the acreage of the land in question being Twenty Three Point Five Nine (23.59) acres, the Director of Surveys and Lands offering the sum of Two Hundred and Forty Two Pounds, Eighteen Shillings and Six Pence (£242.18s.6p) and the claimants have submitted a claim totaling Thirty Six Thousand, Nine Hundred and Eighty Six Pounds, Four Shillings and Eight Pence (£36,986.14s.8d), <b>LUKE Ag J, </b>in making a determination thought it necessary to go very carefully into the principles which have been established in ascertaining and fixing the claims for properties acquired compulsorily as required by the <b>PUBLIC LANDS ORDINANCE </b>and in this light considered a number of authorities on this question of compensation on compulsory purchase. <b>LUKE Ag. J </b>determined the total figure of compensation to be One Thousand, Three Hundred and Thirty Eight Pounds, Three Shillings and Six Pence (£1,338.3s.6d).</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">It should be pointed out, that the reference made to the decided cases above does not in any way mean that, the situation at hand involving the Plaintiff/Applicant herein and the conduct aforesaid, of the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent calls for the prompt payment of compensation to the Plaintiff/Applicant. In the cases referred to above, there is no doubt that the taking of possession or acquisition of the interest in the pieces or parcels of land involved was necessary by reason of one or more of the factors as outlined in Section 21(1) of the <b>CONSTITUTION </b>aforesaid. All what the cases referred  above show is the fact that the law makes provision applicable the taking<b> </b>possession or acquisition for the prompt payment of adequate compensation </span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:8.5pt"><span style="tab-stops:lined 41.2pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Courier New&quot;"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:13.0pt"><span style="color:black">and securing a right of access to a Court for the determination of a claimant’s interest or right, the legality of the taking of possession or acquisition of the piece or parcel of land involved and the amount of compensation which the claimants are entitled to. The determination of these factors is clearly unnecessary for the purpose of the application herein as the compulsory taking of possession or acquisition of the interest in the property at Sussex, the subject matter of the application herein, be it purported or not, failed the test of necessity in accordance with one or more of the factors outlined in Section 21(1) of the <b>CONSTITUTION </b>aforesaid.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">This Court holds the view that, the entering upon the property aforesaid, by the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent with a group of armed men, chasing the workers and security guards employed by the said Plaintiff/Applicant and putting up a sign board with the inscription ‘THIS IS STATE LAND’ and the purported taking possession of and acquisition of the interest of the Plaintiff/Applicant in the said property was not in accordance with and was a clear breach of the process of compulsorily acquisition of property by the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE as provided under Section 21 of the <b>CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE 1991. </b>This being the case, the conduct of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent was not in compliance with and was a clear breach of the <b>PUBLIC LANDS ACT, CHAPTER 116 of the LAWS OF SIERRA LEONE, </b>which said legislation makes provision for the acquisition, by the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE of lands for public purposes after adequate compensation has been paid for such lands. Clearly, it has not been shown that the acquisition aforesaid, of the property aforesaid, be it purported or not, was done for public purposes and done after adequate compensation had been paid to the Plaintiff/Applicant for the said property.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">It cannot be disputed that the conduct aforesaid, of the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent amounts to the depriving of the Plaintiff/Applicant’s use and enjoyment of the property at Sussex, the subject matter of the application herein. This Court holds the view that the said conduct of the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent amounts to a clear breach of Section 22 of the <b>CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE 1991 </b>which provides in part as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><i><span style="color:black">‘Except with his own consent, no person shall be subjected to the entry by others on his premises, such provision which shall not be sanctioned by any law save that such law shall not be inconsistent with or in contravention of the above provision to the extent that the in question makes provision that is reasonably required for certain purposes outlined in Section 22 (2) of the said CONSTITUTION except that the thing done under the authority thereof is shown not to be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society'.</span></i></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">It is clear that the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent entered the property at Sussex, the subject matter of the application herein, forcefully and without the consent of the Plaintiff/Applicant. There is not an iota of evidence that the forcible entry into the property aforesaid by the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent was done in the interest of defense, public safety, public order, public morality, public health, town and country planning or the development or utilization of the said property in such a manner so as to promote the public health or to enable anybody corporate established directly by any law or any department of the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE or any land authority to enter on the property of the Plaintiff/Applicant aforesaid, in order to carry out work in connection with the said property or installation which is lawfully on the said property and which belongs to that body corporate or to the GOVERNMEMT OF SIERRA LEONE or to that authority as the case may be or for the purpose of protecting the rights and freedom of other persons or for the purpose of executing a judgement or order of a Court or for the purpose of affording such special care and assistance as are necessary for the health, safety, development and wellbeing of women, children and young persons, the aged and the handicapped. Since it was not shown that the forcible entry by the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent into the property aforesaid, was done in accordance with some law reasonably required for the purposes aforesaid, it would not be necessary to show that such law is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">In answer to the questions asked of this Court, it has been determined above that, the property situate, lying and being at Peninsula Road, Sussex in the Western Area of Sierra Leone, more particularly described and delineated on survey plan numbered LS 1631/90, the subject matter of the application herein is not State Land. It has been determined further that the conduct of the 1<sup>st</sup></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Defendant/Respondent is not in accordance with the process of compulsory acquisition of property by the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE and the acquisition aforesaid, be it purported or not and the taking of possession of all that property aforesaid, is not in compliance with Section 21 of the <b>CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE </b>1991 and or in compliance with the</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><span style="color:black">PUBLIC LANDS ACT CHAPTER 116 </span></b><span style="color:black">OF THE <b>LAWS OF SIERRA LEONE</b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><span style="color:black">1960 </span></b><span style="color:black">as amended. It has also been determined above that the conduct of the </span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent amounts to depriving  the Plaintiff /applicant of the<b> </b></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:75%"><span style="tab-stops:25.9pt lined 65.9pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">use and enjoyment of his property aforesaid, the said conduct of the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent which also amounts to a clear breach of Section 22 of the <b>CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE 1991.</b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">The Plaintiff/Applicant has prayed that this Court makes certain Declarations and grant certain Orders in the event that the answers to the first three questions asked are in the negative and the answer to the last question asked is in the affirmative. Indeed, the answers to the first three questions asked are in the negative and the answer to the last question asked is in the affirmative, which said answers should pave the way for the making of the Declarations and the grant of the Orders sought. It cannot be disputed that, the making of the Declarations and the grant of the Orders sought by the Plaintiff/Applicant as prayed for would be against all Three (3} Defendants/Respondents. It could be seen however, that from the answers given to the questions asked for, as posed by the Plaintiff/Applicant, both the 2<sup>nd</sup> and the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants/Respondents do not seem to have been implicated in so far as the conduct of the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent is concerned. By reason of the fact that, this Court would not be inclined to make any Declaration and grant Orders against both the 2<sup>nd</sup> and the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants/Respondents, it would have to justify this.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">The 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant/Respondent is the Director of Surveys and Lands in the Ministry of Lands. His office was established by the <b>SURVEYS ACT CHAPTER 128 of the LAWS OF SIERRA LEONE 1960 </b>as amended by <b>ACT NO. 14 </b>of <b>1960, </b>which said amendment conferred on him, the exclusive right to sign and authorize survey plans. The 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant/Respondent’s office is a public office, subject to the code of conduct issued by the PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION governing the manner in which all public officers carry out their duties. He is not authorized to depart from the parameters laid down in that code. As has been stated above, there is no evidence whatsoever showing that the 2<sup>nd </sup>Defendant/Respondent entered the Plaintiff/Applicant’s property aforesaid, together with the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent. This being the case, it cannot be said that, he deprived the Plaintiff/Applicant of the use and enjoyment of his property, caused a breach of the peace in terms of the PUBLIC ORDER ACT <b>1965 </b>as amended and the state of Emergency which now exists in Sierra Leone, violently contravened his oath of office taken by him and it cannot be said that his actions, if any, is unconstitutional and in contravention of Sections 21 and 22 of the <b>CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA </b>LEONE <b>1991 </b>and its related processes. Undisputedly, it was his predecessor-in-office who signed the survey plan attached to the Plaintiff/Applicant’s Deed of Title to his property aforesaid as required of his office according to law. However, there is absolutely no evidence </span></span></span></span></span><span style="page:WordSection3"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">that he has departed from the parameters laid down in his code of conduct issued by the PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and compromised the actions of his predecessor-in-office, regarding the survey plan attached to the Plaintiff/Applicant’s Deed of Title. There is no evidence shown that the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent ordered him to breach that code of Conduct which said Order(s) the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant/Respondent complied with.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div class="WordSection3"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection3"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">In so far as the complicity of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant/Respondent, in the conduct of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent is concerned, an analysis of Exhibits ‘MAT 10’, <b>‘MAT 13’ </b>and <b>‘MAT 18’ </b>annexed to the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU TARRAF sworn to on the 30<sup>th</sup> October 2020, will determine the issue aforesaid. The 3<sup>rd </sup>Defendant/Respondent had made it absolutely and abundantly clear to the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent that the property, which is the subject matter of the application herein was not State Land neither was it the property of the Ministry of Lands, the said property which was privately owned by the Plaintiff/Applicant. The 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant/Respondent had made it absolutely and abundantly clear to the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent that, entering the property aforesaid, with REV. DAVID CHAMBERS and several thugs apparently to help REV. DAVID CHAMBERS claim ownership of the property aforesaid, was unconstitutional and had advised, that it was not his duty but the Courts to declare who the owner of the property aforesaid is. The 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant/Respondent had made it absolutely and abundantly clear to the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent that, his conduct aforesaid was done in the guise of acting for and on behalf of the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE. The 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant/Respondent had unequivocally advised the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent to forthwith refrain from his conduct and show respect to the laws of the land.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection3"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">This Court holds the view that the above analysis could be safely interpreted to mean the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant/Respondent saying to the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent that, any further conduct in breach of the advise given to him would be considered as him conducting himself personally and not conducting himself for and on behalf of the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE. In this regard, it cannot be said that the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant/Respondent together with the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent, forcibly and forcefully and without lawful excuse or authority laid hold of, and unlawfully seized and laid claim to all that piece of parcel of land situate, lying and being at Peninsula Road, Sussex in the Western Area of Sierra Leone, the subject matter of the application herein; that it cannot be said that his actions, if any, is unconstitutional and in contravention of Sections 21 and 22 of the CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE 1991 and its </span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="page:WordSection4"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">related processes and it cannot be said that the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant/Respondent should be held responsible for the conduct of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div class="WordSection4"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection4"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Even though it can be declared that, the acts of violence, the use of force perpetrated and utilized by the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent with the aid and assistance of armed personnel at the Plaintiff/Applicant’s property aforesaid, in the full view of onlookers, amounts to a breach of the peace in terms o* the <b>PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1965 </b>as amended and that the same amounts to contravention of the oath taken by the said 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent on the occasion of his being sworn in as a Minister with Cabinet rank by His Excellency, the President of Sierra Leone, which oath is contained in the Third Schedule to the CONSTITUTION aforesaid, specifically swearing that he will support, <b>uphold and maintain the CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE as </b>by law <b>established, so help me God’, </b>it cannot be declared that the acts of the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent amounts to a breach of the State of Emergency which now exists in Sierra Leone, primarily because there is absolutely no evidence adduced herein, showing the variety of conducts would amounts to a breach of the State of Emergency which now exists in Sierra Leone and which would enable this Court to determine whether the conduct of the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent amounts to a breach of the State of Emergency aforesaid.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection4"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:120%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">The Plaintiff/Applicant has claimed for a Declaration that the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent, grossly contravened the provisions of Section 62 of the <b>CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE 1991, </b>the same which provides thus:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection4"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:120%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><i><span style="color:black">‘Where any Minister has been charged with responsibility for any department of GOVERNMENT, he shall exercise general direction and control over that department and subject to such direction and control, the department shall be under the supervision of a Permanent Secretary, whose office shall be a public office’.</span></i></b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection4"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">It cannot be disputed that, the provision above stipulates that, the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent shall exercise general direction and control over the Ministry of Lands, Housing and Country Planning and that the day to day supervision of the Ministry by the Permanent Secretary is subject to the general direction and control over the Ministry which the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent shall exercise. In this regard, if the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent himself, together-with others authorized by him, chooses to embark on an enterprise;</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:23px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection4"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">with armed personnel to a piece or parcel of land owned by a private individual</span></span><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black"> namely the Plaintiff/Applicant herein, to forcibly seize and take control of the said piece or parcel of land without lawful authority thereby, it cannot be said that the same is outside the remit of his office as he is the one who shall exercise general direction and control over the Ministry of Lands, Housing and Country Planning. Consequently it cannot be said that he unlawfully wrestled away the powers conferred on the Permanent Secretary, in the Ministry of Lands to supervise the daily and physical activities of the said Ministry. Moreover it cannot be said that the activity aforesaid, embarked on by the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent is part of the daily and physical activities of the said Ministry.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection4"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Even though it can be declared that, the unlawful actions and declarations of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent in relation to the Plaintiff/Applicant’s ownership of the property at Sussex, subject matter of the application herein, are against public policy and that the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent’s conduct, words and declarations during his violent attacks on the property of the Plaintiff/Applicant aforesaid, are not authorized or sanctioned by any law in force in Sierra Leone, this Court cannot declare that such actions will encourage the ordinary voting public to believe that, it is permissible conduct for an individual without the support of the law or an order of the Court, to violently take possession of another person’s land, primarily because the making of such a declaration would be tantamount to saying that Sierra Leone is a lawless society without any respect for the Rule of Law, in that, for it to act in the manner aforesaid, all what the ordinary voting public would wait for is encouragement from a state actor who takes the law into his own hands, for them to also do likewise. It is for this same reason why this Court cannot declare that, the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent’s conduct, actions, words and declarations during his violent attacks on the said property of the Plaintiff/Applicant, if not stopped, may result in eternal conflicts between law abiding and law-breaking citizens of this peaceful country. Obviously, what can be said in this regard is that, law abiding citizens are encouraged to institute actions in Court against law-breaking citizens in respect of incidents similar to the one herein since it is the duty of the Courts to resolve conflicts between law abiding and law-breaking citizens of this peaceful country, implementation of the same which should and would discourage the ordinary voting public to believe that, it is permissible conduct for an individual without the support of the law or an order of the Court, to violently take possession of another person’s land and law abiding and law­breaking citizens resolving conflicts between them by themselves.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <div style="border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding:0in 0in 0in 0in; margin-right:59px"> <p class="Bodytext30" style="border:none; padding:0in; text-align:right"><span style="page:WordSection4"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">The Plaintiff/Applicant has prayed for an order that, Damages be paid by the 1<sup>st </sup>and the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants/Respondents for trespass on the property at Sussex, the subject matter of the application herein and the contravention of the Plaintiff/Applicants’ fundamental right provided for by Section 21 of the <b>CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE 1991. </b>It has been conclusively determined above that, the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant/Respondent cannot be held liable for the conduct of 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent by reason that there is no evidence adduced herein, of the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant/Respondent’s participation in implementing the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent’s conduct. The pertinent question that’s follows is <b>‘Does this pave the way for this Court to order the </b>1<sup>st </sup><b>Defendant/Respondent to pay damages, himself being the only person who perpetrated the acts aforesaid in breach of Section 21 of the CONSTITUTION aforesaid’? </b>It should be pointed out that in so far as the invoking of Section 21 aforesaid, is concerned, it is only the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE that can compulsorily take possession of property and interest or right over such property acquired from a citizen and it is only them who can be named Defendants in an action for breach of Section 21 aforesaid.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </div> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection4"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Justification for the proposition aforesaid can be found from the very contents of Section 21 of the <b>CONSTITUTION </b>aforesaid. Certainly, in a bid to justify the taking of possession and the acquiring of interest or right over property, it would not be a private citizen acting alone on his own behalf that would have to declare, that it is in the interest of defense, public safety, public order, public morality, public health, town and country planning, the development or utilization of the property in such manner as to promote the public benefit or the public welfare of citizens of Sierra Leone. It is the case further that, it cannot be a private citizen that would have to provide reasonable justification balancing the need for the taking of possession and the acquiring of interests or rights over the property and any hardship that may result to any person having an interest or right over the said property. It is the case also that it cannot be a private citizen that would have to make provision in law applicable to the taking of possession or acquisition for the prompt payment of adequate compensation and securing to any person having an interest in or right over the property, a right of access to a Court or other independent authority for the determination of that persons’ interest or right, the legality of the taking of possession or acquisition of the property, interest or right and the amount of any compensation to which that person is entitled to and for the purpose of obtaining prompt compensation. Clearly and from the above, it is state actors from all three arms of the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE, the Executive, </span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="page:WordSection4"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">the Judiciary that would have to be involved in justifying that the conditions above, necessary for the successful compulsorily taking over possession of property and interest or right over such property are fully complied with.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection4"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">It cannot be disputed that all Three(3) Defendants/Respondents are the state actors named in defense of the Plaintiff/Applicants’ claim that Section 21 of the <b>CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE 1991 </b>was breached. It is obvious, that the Plaintiff/Applicant claim could be equated to him saying that all Three (3) Defendants/Respondent were acting in concert for and on behalf of the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE. However, this Court has determined above that, in so far as the breach of Section 21 aforesaid, is concerned, the 2<sup>nd </sup>and the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants/Respondent were not in concert with the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent and cannot in the circumstance be said to be acting for and on behalf of the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE in this regard. It has been established above that there is absolutely no evidence brought forward linking the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant/Respondent with the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent or the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant/Respondent complying with instructions from the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent, such instructions being in breach of Section 21 of the <b>CONSTITUTION </b>aforesaid. It has been established further that the 3<sup>rd </sup>Defendant/Respondent as the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice of Sierra Leone and acting for and on behalf of the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE, severally did all he could, to get the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent to restrain himself from proceeding with his actions, in breach of section 21 aforesaid, to no avail in the circumstance. Both the 2<sup>nd</sup> and the 3<sup>rd </sup>Defendants/Respondent cannot be held liable to pay Damages to the Plaintiff/Applicant for trespass and contravention of the Plaintiffs’/Applicants fundamental right provided for by Section 21 of the CONSTITUTION OF <b>SIERRA LEONE 1991.</b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection4"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">From the above analysis, it cannot be disputed that it was the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent who solely acted in violation of section 21 o~ the <b>CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE 1991. </b>This Court holds the view that, notwithstanding the lack of any authority and the fact, as established above, that he had no co-operation from the 2<sup>nd</sup> and the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants/Respondents. themselves being state actors, as the Director of Surveys and Lands and the Attorney General and Minister of Justice respectively, the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent, from his own point of view at the time he acted, was so acting on behalf of the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE, himself being a state actor as the Minister of Land, Housing and Country. In the circumstance, the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent, who seem to be the one Iiable to  pay damages to the Plaintiff/Applicant for trespass and contravention of the </span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="page:WordSection4"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:127%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Plaintiff/Applicants’ fundamental rights provided for by Section 21 of the <b>CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE 1991 </b>ought to be ordered to pay damages to the Plaintiff/Applicant.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:23px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection4"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Obviously, an Order for the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent to pay Damages to the Plaintiff/Applicant would not be an Order directed personally to the 1st Defendant/Respondent, by reason that as stated above, at the time he acted he did so for and on behalf of the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE as the Minister of Lands, Housing and Country Planning and there is no way he could have acted personally. It cannot be disputed that, had he succeeded and compulsorily taken possession of and acquired the interest or right over the property of Sussex, subject matter of the application herein, in compliance with Section 21 of the <b>CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE 1991, </b>it is the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE that would have benefited. It stands to reason that, if there is a detriment to be suffered as a result of the conduct of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent, it is the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE that should bear it. Consequently, an Order for the1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent to pay Damages to the Plaintiff/Applicant would in effect be an indirect one for the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE to pay Damages to the Plaintiff/Applicant. It should be noted however that from the foregoing, this Court has no inclination to make an indirect Order for the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE to pay Damages to the Plaintiff/Applicant for the contravention of Section 21 of the <b>CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE 1991 </b>and it would refrain from making such an Order for very good reasons.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection4"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">In the first place and as stated above, it would seem very unfair to order the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE to pay Damages when the evidence does not show that the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant/Respondent, who is one of the persons who the Plaintiff/Applicant requests an order to be made against, doing anything absolutely to help or assist the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent. Further, it would seem very unfair to order the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE to pay Damages, when it has been uncontrovertibly shown that, the 3<sup>rd </sup>Defendant/Respondent severally advised that, the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent refrains from conducting himself in the way he did, so much so that, this Court interpreted such persistent advise to mean the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant/Respondent saying to the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent that, he would be acting on his own if he proceeds with his actions as outlined above. It would seem very unfair also, </span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="page:WordSection4"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="tab-stops:164.8pt 277.1pt 344.7pt 389.45pt 469.15pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">subject matter of the application herein as his own by extra judicial means, the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent unlawfully using his position as the Minister of Lands, Housing and Country Planning to do so, the same which the 3<sup>rd</sup></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="page:WordSection4"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="tab-stops:164.8pt 277.1pt 344.7pt 389.45pt 469.15pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Defendant/Respondent had clearly pointed out to the 1<sup>st</sup></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="page:WordSection4"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Defendant/Respondent. This Court holds the view that, notwithstanding the fact that as stated above it would seem very unfair to order the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE to pay Damages for the reasons stated above, there is still nothing shown stopping this Court from making an order indirectly ordering the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE to pay Damages by reason that the reasons given above why it should not order Damages against the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE are purely sentimental and that this Court should not act on sentiments. It would seem then that for the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE to escape liability for Damages, it would by itself and or through its state actors like the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant/Respondent to do more than giving advices. Steps should have been taken to ensure that the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent is stopped forthwith from proceeding with his acts.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:23px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection4"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">This Court takes judicial notice of the notorious fact that the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent is no longer the Minister of Lands Housing and Country Planning since he was relieved of his office as such sometime during the pendency of the application herein. Even though the relieving of his duties seem to be rather belated as it did not prevent the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent from proceeding with his acts, his relieving of his duties came before the consideration of the grant of the orders sought herein. Clearly even though the said 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent conducted himself whilst he was Minister of Lands, Housing and Country Planning no order can be made against him as the Minister of Lands, Housing and Country Planning by virtue that he is no longer in such office. This Court holds the view that an order though can be made against him personally as DR. DENNIS M. SANDY, since by so doing, the same would not be tantamount to indirectly ordering the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE to pay Damages. In this regard, even though the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent cannot be ordered to pay Damages to the Plaintiff/Applicant for his conduct in breach of Section 21 of the CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE, he would be liable to pay the Plaintiff/Applicant Damages for Trespass to the property at Sussex, the subject matter of the application herein.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:23px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection4"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:112%"><span style="tab-stops:344.7pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">As regards the Plaintiff/Applicant’s claim for Damages for Trespass, the law as stated by <b>RENNER-THOMAS </b>CJ in the case between <b>SORIE TARAWALLI </b>and <b>SORIE KAMARA </b>cited above is that:                                                                        '<sup>z</sup></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:11px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection4"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><i><span style="color:black">‘all the Plaintiff has to prove is a better right to possession than the Defendant and that one way to do this is to show that he has a better title to the piece or parcel of land in question’.</span></i></b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:11px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection4"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Clearly as this Court finds from the above, it holds the view that the Plaintiff/Applicant has proved that he has a better title to the property at Sussex, which is the subject matter of the application herein, than the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent who has not shown any title to the same. From the uncontroverted facts as deposed to in the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU- TARRAF sworn to on the 30<sup>th</sup> October 2020, this Court holds the view that the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent has trespassed on the property at Sussex, which is the subject matter of the application herein, and that the Plaintiff/Applicant is therefore entitled to Damages for trespass. Uncontrovertibly, it is deposed to in the said affidavit that on the 8<sup>th</sup> July 2020, the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent entered the property of the Plaintiff/Applicant aforesaid with armed men dressed with purported police and military fatigue, forcefully removing the guards deployed to secure the property aforesaid and carting away building materials worth millions of Sierra Leone Leones. This Court finds that, from Exhibits ‘MAT <b>14’, ‘MAT 15<sup>1</sup>'<sup>34</sup>’, ‘MAT 19’ </b>and <b>‘MAT 20’ </b>the same which are photographs depicting the trespass and malicious damage on the said property aforesaid, a storage pin being a video and photos showing the demolition and destruction of the structures on the said property respectively, the same annexed to the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU-TARRAF aforesaid, the damage done on the property at Sussex, the subject matter of the application herein, seems to be minimal. What is seen are a few pieces of Zinc, Wooden Boards and Sticks, metal railings all of which seem to be remnants of some destruction to some temporal structure(s), together with a few concrete blocks scattered around a concrete fence structure, the top parts of which show minimal destruction, the said destruction together with the building materials carted away which this Court assesses at Ten Million Sierra Leone Leones (SLL 10,000,000.00).</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:11px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection4"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">By reason that the Interlocutory Injunction granted aforesaid, was properly granted, the undertaking in damages filed by the Plaintiff/Applicant on the 16<sup>th </sup>February 2021 ought to be discharged. Notwithstanding the fact that it has been held above that, the 2<sup>nd</sup> and the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendants/Respondents cannot be held responsible for the conduct of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent the Plaintiff/Applicant is entitled to the Perpetual Injunction sought herein, primarily to ensure that the successors-in-office of all the Defendants/Respondents are kept in check to prevent a re-occurrence of the conduct of the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent. The Plaintiff/Applicant is also entitled to the Costs of the application and of the proceedings herein.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </div> <p> </p> <div class="WordSection5"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:73px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection5"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">By reason of the above, the Plaintiff/Applicant succeeds in his application. This Court hereby make the following Declarations and grants the following Orders:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:73px; margin-left:5px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection5"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="tab-stops:35.3pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><a name="bookmark14" id="bookmark14"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">It is hereby <b>DECLARED </b>that MOHAMED KAMEL WANZA is the fee simple owner of all that property, situate, lying and being at Peninsula Road, Sussex Village, in the Western Area of Sierra Leone, measuring about 9.3019 acres in area more particularly described and delineated on survey plan dated 27<sup>th</sup> July 1990 and numbered LS 1737/90 and based on Deed of Conveyance made between GHAZI R. FAIAD and MOHAMED KAMEL WANZA, the Plaintiff/Applicant herein, dated 15<sup>th</sup> November 1990 and registered as No. 1602/90 at page 49 in Volume 444 of the Books of Conveyances kept in the office of the Registrar General at Walpole Street Freetown, the said property which is Private Land.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:73px; margin-left:5px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection5"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="tab-stops:35.3pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><a name="bookmark15" id="bookmark15"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">It is hereby <b>DECLARED </b>that DR. DENNIS M. SANDY the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent has violated the rights of the Plaintiff/Applicant herein, contained in Section 21 of the <b>CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE, 1991 </b>in that, DR DENNIS M. SANDY the erstwhile MINISTER OF LANDS, HOUSING AND COUNTRY PLANNING, the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent herein, forcibly and forcefully and without lawful excuse or authority laid hold of and unlawfully seized and laid claim to all that property aforesaid, situate, lying and being at Peninsula Road, Sussex in the Western Area of Sierra Leone, the same whereof is owned legally and beneficially by the said Plaintiff/Applicant, the person entitled to possession of the same and who has been the person possessed of and otherwise well and sufficiently entitled to possession of the same for upwards of Thirty (30) years last past at least.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:5px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection5"><span style="line-height: 122%;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 13pt;"><a name="bookmark16" id="bookmark16"></a></span><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: 13pt;">It is hereby </span><b style="font-size: 13pt;">DECLARED </b><span style="font-size: 13pt;">that the said acts and actions and the several written and oral declarations of the 1</span><sup style="font-size: 13pt;">st</sup><span style="font-size: 13pt;"> Defendant/Respondent are tantamount to a violent wrongful and unlawful deprivation of the property rights of the said Plaintiff/Applicant contrary to the provisions of section 21 and 22 of the CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE said acts and Declarations of the 1</span><span style="font-size: 14.4444px;">st </span><span style="font-size: 13pt;"> Defendant/Respondent are not </span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:125%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">uncontroverted facts in relation to the said application are that, on the 12<sup>th</sup> June 2020, the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent entered the property of the Plaintiff/Applicant at Peninsula Road, Sussex Village aforesaid, with no indication of what motivated the entry upon the said property. On the 8<sup>th</sup> July 2020, the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent again entered the property of the Plaintiff/Applicant aforesaid with armed men dressed with purported police and military fatigue, forcefully removing the guards deployed to secure the property aforesaid and carting away building materials worth millions of Sierra Leone Leones. On this occasion, the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent also took away the keys to the main gate of the property.</span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol></div> <div class="WordSection6"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">The affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU-TARRAF aforesaid, deposes further that prior to the dates aforesaid, the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent uncontrovertibly, had previously entered the property of the Plaintiff/Applicant aforesaid, on the 1<sup>st </sup>August 2018 with a truck full of police officers, claiming that the same is Government land, the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent who proceeded to seriously damage the zinc structure which the Plaintiff/Applicant had built on the property aforesaid, for his security guards on the same, the said 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent who then erected a sign post on the property with the inscription ‘GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE MINISTRY OF LANDS HOUSING AND ENVIRONMENT CLAIMED AS STATE LAND DIRECTOR OF SURVEYS AND LANDS. On the 16<sup>th</sup> July 2020, the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent once again entered into the property of the Plaintiff/Applicant claiming that the piece or parcel of land is Government land, the said 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent who proceeded to erect sign posts on the property with the inscription <b>‘STATE LAND’.</b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Uncontrovertibly, on Tuesday the 25<sup>th</sup> August 2020, the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent entered the Plaintiff/Applicant’s property at Peninsula Circular Road, Sussex in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone aforesaid, with about forty (40) armed men dressed in military fatigue with others appearing in the Operational Support Division of the Sierra Leone Police attire and others in civilian attire and broke down three (3) sign posts and damaged the zinc (pan body) structure erected by the Plaintiff/Applicant on the property aforesaid. It remains uncontroverted that during this incident, one of the security personnel accompanying the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent slapped one Sergeant ALUSINE S. CONTEH 536 who was officially assigned to the property aforesaid, by the SIERRA LEONE POLICE, the said Sergeant ALUSINE S. CONTEH 536 who officially reported the matter aforesaid, to the Station which said matter was referred to the Headquarter pf z</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">LEONE POLICE and statements obtained from witnesses including Sergeant ALUSINE S. CONTEH 536, but which said matter remains under investigations, whilst the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent continue to threaten the effective possession of the property aforesaid.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:125%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Uncontrovertibly, the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent also instructed some persons that he entered the property with on the 25<sup>th</sup> August 2020 to write ‘stop work’ on the gates of the property in bold red paint as shown in Exhibit <b>‘MAT 14<sup>1-2</sup>’, </b>the same being photographs depicting the Plaintiff/Applicant’s claim aforesaid, that on the instructions of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent, persons who entered the property of the Plaintiff/Applicant aforesaid with the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent wrote ‘stop work’ on the gates of the said property, Exhibits <b>‘MAT 15<sup>1</sup>'<sup>34</sup>’ </b>which are photographs depicting the trespass and malicious damage committed on the property of the Plaintiff/Applicant at Peninsula Circular Road, Sussex Village in the Western Area of Sierra Leone by and under the instructions and supervision of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent, Exhibits <b>‘MAT 19’ </b>and <b>‘MAT 20’ </b>being a video recording with photographs showing one of the violent attacks by the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent on the Plaintiff/Applicant’s property aforesaid, the demolition and destruction of the structures on the said property, the incidents aforesaid, which was reported in local newspapers as seen in Exhibits <b>‘MAT 21<sup>1</sup>-<sup>4</sup>’.</b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Uncontrovertibly and as deposed in the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU-TARRAF aforesaid, the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent was always accompanied by one REV DAVID CHAMBERS, who as the Plaintiff/Applicant claims, is a well-known land grabber, the Plaintiff/Applicant who says he cannot fathom the reason why the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent would be going on the property aforesaid, with him.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Clearly, the uncontroverted facts as outlined above, would be the same as the Plaintiff/Applicant asserting that, his property at Sussex aforesaid, the subject matter of the action herein was compulsorily taken possession of and his interests in or rights over the said property compulsorily acquired by the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent herein, all in breach of Section 21(1) of the <b>CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE 1991. </b>Further, the uncontroverted facts aforesaid are again the same as the Plaintiff/Applicant asserting that, the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent forcefully entered his property aforesaid, without his approval and consent, in breach of Section 22(1) of the <b>CONSTITUTION </b>aforesaid. This Court holds the view that, it is in this rega<u>rd th</u>at the Plaintiff/Applicant proceeded to file the application herein, <b>pursuant to section </b>28(1) of the <b>CONSTITUTION </b>aforesaid, the same which provides follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><i><span style="color:black">‘... If any person alleges that any of Sections 16 to 27 (inclusive) has been, is being or is likely to be contravened in relation to him by any person... then, without prejudice to any other action with respect to the same matter which is lawfully available, that person (or that other person), may apply by Motion to the Supreme Court for redress’.</span></i></b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">In this case, the Plaintiff/Applicant asserts that the actions of the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent as outlined above, contravenes Sections 21(1) and 22(1) of the CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE 1991. It cannot be disputed that the said provisions fall within Sections 16 to 27 of the same. This being the case, the enforcement of and or the interpretation of Sections 21(1) and 22(1) aforesaid which are provisions of the CONSTITUTION aforesaid, are matters which would have to be dealt with. By virtue of the fact that the provisions aforesaid are provisions contained in the CONSTITUTION aforesaid, the enforcement of and interpretation of the same could only be dealt with by this Court, pursuant to Section 124(1) of the said CONSTITUTION which provides thus:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><i><span style="color:black">‘The Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other Courts in all matters relating to the enforcement or interpretation of any provision of the CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE 1991’.</span></i></b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">It should be pointed out that, the complaint of the Plaintiff/Applicant is, that the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent has claimed that the property situate lying and being at Peninsula Road, Sussex in the Western Area of Sierra Leone more particularly described and delineated on the survey plan numbered LS 1631/90 is State Land. The Plaintiff/Applicant on the other hand insists that the said property is his, claiming that by his conduct, the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent has wrongly construed the enactment which defines what State Land is, his actions regarding the same, which is inconsistent with the provisions of Sections 21(1) and 22(1) of the CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE 1991. Clearly the Plaintiff/Applicant’s claim aforesaid is being made pursuant to Section 127(1) of the said CONSTITUTION which provides thus:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><i><span style="color:black">‘A person who alleges that an enactment or anything contained in or done under the authority of that or any other enactment is inconsistent with or is in contravention of a provision of the CONSTITUTION herein, <u>may at any </u>time bring an action in the Supreme Court for a Declaration to...</span></i></b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:25px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Indeed, the principal question which this Court seeks to answer is, whether or not the property, being the piece or parcel of land and hereditaments situate, lying and being at Peninsula Road, Sussex in the Western Area of Sierra Leone, the subject matter of the application herein is State Land. Section 2 of the <b>STATE LANDS ACT 1960 </b>defines ‘State Land’ as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:25px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><i><span style="color:black">‘STATE LANDS mean all lands which belong to the state by virtue of any treaty, cession, convention or agreement and all lands which have been, or may hereafter be acquired by or on behalf of the state for any public purpose or otherwise howsoever and lands acquired under the provisions of the PUBLIC LANDS ACT and include all shores, beaches, lagoons, creeks, rivers, estuaries and other places and waters whatsoever belonging to, acquired by, or which may be lawfully disposed of by or on behalf of the state’....</span></i></b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:25px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">It is absolutely clear that it has not been shown and that there is no evidence whatsoever suggesting that the property aforesaid, which is the subject matter of application herein belongs to the state by virtue of any treaty, cession, convention or agreement. Rather the Plaintiff/Applicant has sufficiently shown as deposed in the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU-TARAFF sworn to on the 30<sup>th </sup>October 2020, that by virtue of a Deed of Conveyance dated 15<sup>th</sup> November 1990 expressed to be made between MOHAMED GHAZI RACHED FAIAD and the Plaintiff/Applicant herein duly registered as No. 1602/90 at page 49 in Volume 444 in the Book of Conveyances kept in the office of the Registrar General in Freetown, in respect of the property aforesaid, delineated on survey plan dated 27<sup>th</sup> July 1990 and numbered LS 1737/90, Plot 1 measuring 8.0549 acres in area and Plot 2 measuring 1.2470 acres in area, the same which is annexed to the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU-TARAFF aforesaid and marked Exhibit <b>‘MAT 2’, </b>the Plaintiff/Applicant herein became seized in fee simple of and otherwise well sufficiently entitled to the property, the subject matter of the application herein.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">As is deposed to in the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU-TARAFF aforesaid, the same which remains unconverted, prior to the delineation of the property, subject matter of the application herein on a private survey plan dated 27<sup>th</sup> July 1990 and numbered LS 1737/90 and signed by a predecessor-in-office of the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant/Respondent, approving same as private property of the</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:25px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:120%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Plaintiff/Applicant herein, the delineation of the said property on another private survey plan dated 6<sup>th</sup> July 1990 and numbered LS 1631/90, had a predecessor-in-office of the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant/Respondent, approving same as private property of MR MOHAMED GHAZI RACHED FAIAD, the immediate predecessor-in-title to the said property of the Plaintiff/Applicant herein. Clearly as deposed to the affidavit aforesaid, it cannot be disputed that the predecessor­-office of the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant/Respondent in the Ministry of Lands and Surveys as custodians of State Lands, would not have signed the said survey plans and approved same as private property with the full knowledge that the property aforesaid, is State Land.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:23px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">As submitted by P. LAMBERT ESQ. of Counsel for the Plaintiff/Applicant, the same contained in the Plaintiff/Applicant’s statement of case dated 9<sup>th </sup>November 2020 at paragraph 16, the Ministry of Lands and Surveys should always know from their records and ought never to be in doubt about which lands are State Lands and there certainly ought never to be in a situation where the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant/Respondent including his predecessors-in-office have passed, approved and authenticated a particular survey plan and assigned to it an LS number as being private land, only for the Minister to later claim that such land is State Land, without any supporting evidence whatsoever, the submission aforesaid, which this Court upholds.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">As deposed to in the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU-TARAFF aforesaid, this Court finds that consistent with the exercise of an owners right to private property as opposed to the exercise of a State owned rights to State Lands, the Plaintiff/Applicant herein after purchasing the said property, which is the subject matter of the application herein from MOHAMED GHAZI RACHED FAIAD, he subsequently leased the same to DOMAINE DE BAW-BAW BEACH COMPANY LTD. in 1991, the said Company who erected villas on the said property, the Lease Agreement aforesaid, which is annexed to the affidavit aforesaid and marked Exhibit <b>‘MAT 4’. </b>Uncontrovertibly and by a Judgement dated 22<sup>nd</sup> March 1994, the same annexed to the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU- TARAFF and marked Exhibit <b>‘MAT 5’, </b>the Plaintiff/Applicant was granted the Recovery of Possession of the property aforesaid, from DOMAINE DE BAW- BAW BEACH COMPANY LTD, the said Judgement which the Appeals Court upheld by its Judgement dated 12<sup>th</sup> October 1999 as seen in Exhibit <b>‘MAT 6’, </b>annexed to the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU-TARAFF. Prior to the said</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:127%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Judgement by the Court of Appeal, execution of the Judgement of the High Court dated 22<sup>nd</sup> March 1994 was done and possession of the property at</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><img align="left" src="file:///C:/Users/DELL/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image018.png" style="width:204px; height:1px" /><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Peninsula Road, Sussex, the subject matter of the application herein, was handed overt© the Plaintiff/Applicant herein. Clearly, it cannot be dis^uted4]^t, as deposed to in the affidavit of MUSTAPHA AB Plaintiff/Applicant herein, has since then been in continuous possession and </span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:125%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">control of the said property until the 18<sup>th</sup> August 2018, when the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent entered the said property, declaring that the same is State Land.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">As deposed to in the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU-TARRAF aforesaid, the property aforesaid of the Plaintiff/Applicant was the subject of another Court matter between <b>ALFRED P. JOHNSON (Deceased) &amp; ROBERT JOHNSON </b>as Plaintiffs and <b>CHARLES HUMPAH </b>(both on his own behalf and as Agent for <b>THEOPHILLUS MASON), MOHAMED GHAZI R. FAIAD, </b>the Plaintiff/Applicant’s immediate predecessor-in-title &amp; <b>MOHAMED KAMEL WANZA, </b>the Plaintiff/Applicant herein as Defendants, MISC. APP. 223/09 in the High Court of Sierra Leone (unreported), which said matter involved the Plaintiffs in the same disputing rights of the Plaintiff/Applicants herein over the property which is the subject of the application herein. After a full trial of the said matter, as uncontrovertibly deposed to in the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU- TARAFF, that the Solicitor for the Plaintiffs in the said matter approached the Solicitors for the Defendants, to explore the possibility of settling the matter out of Court, consequent upon which, settlement was reached in accordance with a Terms of settlement signed by all the parties dated 23<sup>rd</sup> March 2016, the same annexed to the affidavit aforesaid and marked Exhibit <b>‘MAT 7’. </b>From the facts as deposed to in the said affidavit, this Court finds that the said Terms of Settlement was adopted by the High Court as a Consent Judgement on the 28<sup>th </sup>April 2016 and Judgement entered in favor of the Plaintiff/Applicant herein, the same which is annexed to the affidavit of MOHAMED ABU TARRAF and marked Exhibit ‘MAT8’, which in part stipulate as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><i><span style="color:black">‘that ALFRED JOHNSON (Deceased) and ROBERT JOHNSON, the Plaintiffs in the matter aforesaid unanimously, voluntarily, wholly and absolutely accept and acknowledge that MOHAMED KAMEL WANZA ‘the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant in the said matter and the Plaintiff/Applicant herein, is the bona fide fee simple owner entitled to permanent ownership and possession of the Two (2) pieces of land situate at Peninsula Road, Sussex Village aforesaid measuring 8.0549 acres (as defined in Plot 1) and 1.2470 acres (as defined in Plot 2) both of which are delineated on survey plan dated 27<sup>th</sup> July 1990 and numbered LS 1737/90 and attached to a Deed of Conveyance dated 15<sup>th</sup> November 1990 and registered as No. 1602/90 at page 49 in Volume 444 in the Books of Conveyances kept in the Office of the Registrar General in Freetown and that the said MOHAMED KAMEL WANSA the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant in the matter aforesaid, the</span></i></b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><i><span style="color:black">herein shall have free, undisturbed and quiet enjoyment of the said piece </span></i></b></span></span></span></span></span><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><span style="color:black">or <i>parcel of land free from any encumbrances, restraint, trespass or encroachment from ALFRED JOHNSON (Deceased) and ROBERT JOHNSON, the Plaintiffs in the matter aforesaid, their privies, agents, assigns, servants, relations and or representatives'.</i></span></b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">From the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU-TARRAF sworn to on the 9<sup>th</sup> November 2020, this Court finds that, subsequent to the Judgement aforesaid entered in favor of the Plaintiff/Applicant as expressed in Exhibit <b>‘MAT 8’ </b>annexed to the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU-TARRAF sworn to on the 30<sup>th</sup> October 2020, one ANTHONY SAMU filed an application by Notice of Motion dated 11<sup>th</sup> January 2017, praying for him to be added a Defendant in the matter between <b>ALFRED P. JOHNSON (Deceased) &amp; ROBERT JOHNSON </b>as Plaintiffs and <b>CHARLES HUMPAH (both on his behalf and as Agent for THEOPHILLUS MASON), MOHAMED GHAZI R. FAIAD &amp; MOHAMED KAMEL WANSA, </b>cited above, a matter for which the Judgement aforesaid was given. From the facts as presented in his affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion aforesaid, marked Exhibit <b>‘MAT 23’ </b>annexed to the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU-TARRAF sworn to on the 9<sup>th</sup> November 2020, the said ANTHONY SAMU claimed that, by reason that he also has a claim over the property which is the subject matter of the action herein, he should have been made a party to the matter for which the Judgement aforesaid was given. ANTHONY SAMU claimed in his affidavit marked Exhibit <b>‘MAT 23’ </b>aforesaid, that it was only one REV. DAVID CHAMBERS who was laying false claims to the property aforesaid, which necessitated him taking a civil action against him. He claimed further that on numerous occasions one PHILIP NEVILLE had met him on the property in question and on a specific day he approached the said PHILIP NEVILLE who then warned him to stay off the said property, PHILIP NEVILLE who then made a report against him for Threatening Remarks and Trespass at the Police. The said ANTHONY SAMU claimed that as a result of the above, the Judgement aforesaid as expressed in Exhibit ‘MAT 8’ and annexed to the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU-TARRAF sworn to on the 30<sup>th</sup> October 2020 is a complete error and therefore should be set aside. It cannot be disputed that, there is absolutely no evidence presented that the Judgement aforesaid was set aside or that the said ANTHONY SAMU pursued his claims to ownership of the property aforesaid, against the Plaintiff/Applicant.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">This Court holds the view that, may be, the clearest determination to the answer whether the property which is the subject matter of the application herein is state land could be found in Exhibit <b>‘MAT 22’ </b>annexed to the affidavit of  MUSTAPHA ABU-TARRAF sworn to on the 9<sup>th</sup> November 2020. <b>EXHIBIT 'MAT22' </b>is an </span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:125%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">uncontroverted report done by one S.A. LUSANIE a Licensed Surveyor after his services were engaged by the Plaintiff/Applicant to investigate the claims made by the 1<sup>st</sup> and the 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendants/Respondents that the property aforesaid is State Land. As contained in Exhibit <b>‘MAT 22’ </b>aforesaid, the analysis of the survey plans for REV. DAVID CHAMBERS and ANTHONY SAMU, concludes respectively that, the survey plans for BRIAN KELVIN CHAMBERS of 1954 and the survey plan for REV. DAVID CHAMBERS were falsified and that by reason that the LS numbers for 1968 ends at the 1500 series, the survey plan for ANTHONY SAMU numbered LS 2141/68 does not exist and is falsified.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">In so far as the claim that the property aforesaid is State Land is concerned, Exhibit <b>‘MAT 22’ </b>aforesaid stipulates that the identification of beacon SLS 37/61 normally creates the impression that the property has some connection with Government survey. However, Exhibit <b>‘MAT 22’ </b>stipulates further that the investigations indicate that the presence of the Government beacon SLS 37/61 in or around the property in question refers to a survey conducted in 1961 to a piece or parcel of land that was referred to as the Governor’s Lodge in accordance with Exhibit <b>‘MAT 22’. </b>The Record Book of Deeds kept in the office of the Director of Surveys and Lands, show that the survey aforesaid, refers to a transfer of land from A.P. BRUNO GASTON conveyed to the Government of Sierra Leone dated 27<sup>th</sup> June 1961 for a piece or parcel of land at Sussex. Exhibit <b>‘MAT 22’ </b>stipulates that this same piece or parcel of land was leased to ARNOLD BISHOP GOODING on the 15<sup>th</sup> January 1991 and sold to him on the 4<sup>th</sup> August 1993. It is seen from the attachments, labelled Annexes 1 and 2, to Exhibits <b>‘MAT 22’, </b>that the survey plans of ARNOLD BISHOP GOODING, clearly represented the Governor’s Lodge defined by Government Beacons numbered SLS 37/61/BP8, SLS 37/61/BP9, SLS 37/61/BP10 and SLS 37/61/B11 against the Plaintiff/Applicants property, the said attachments which clearly show that the Plaintiff’/Applicant’s property is different, separate and distinct from that of the Governor’s Lodge and separated by access roads. Exhibit <b>‘MAT 22’ </b>concludes that the Plaintiff/Applicants property is private property and it is not State Land, that the piece or parcel of land purchased by the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE in 1961 for the construction of the Governor’s Lodge was originally the private property of A.P. BRUNO GASTON, the same which was conveyed to ARNOLD BISHOP GOODING in 1993 and that no claims can be made by REV. DAVID CHAMBERS and ANTHONY SAMU to the property which is the subject matter of the application herein by reason of the defects in their respective survey plans as stated in <b>Exhibit MAT 22’.</b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:125%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">It cannot be disputed that the above analysis conclusively establish the fact that the property situate at Peninsula Road, Sussex, in the Western Area of Sierra Leone, the subject matter of the application herein cannot be State Land in accordance with the definition in Section 2 of the <b>STATE LANDS ACT 1960 </b>or any other legislation in Sierra Leone. This Court upholds the submission of P. LAMBERT ESQ. of Counsel for the Plaintiff/Applicant, that the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd </sup>Defendants/Respondents failed to produce any evidence in support of the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent’s claim that the said property is State Land. The fact that the property aforesaid, is not STATE LAND has severally been confirmed by the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant/Respondent.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">The 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant/Respondent is the ATTORNEY GENERAL and MINISTER OF JUSTICE who, in accordance with Section 64(1) of the <b>CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE 1991, </b>shall be the Principal Legal Adviser to the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE, including with certainty, the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent who at the relevant point in time was the Minister of Lands, Housing and Country Planning and a part of Cabinet and by extension part ofthe GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE. As submitted by P. LAMBERT ESQ. of Counsel for the Plaintiff/Applicant, the same which this Court sees no reason to overrule, the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant/Respondent has been made a party to the action herein in his capacity as Principal Legal Adviser to the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE and also in the light of the exchanges of correspondence between the Solicitor for the Plaintiff/Applicant and himself, the 3<sup>rd </sup>Defendant/Respondent. Following several complaints made by the Solicitors for the Plaintiff/Applicant herein of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent conduct as outlined above, the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant/Respondent made it absolutely and unequivocally clear that the property which is the subject matter of the application herein is Private Property and not STATE LAND as seen in Exhibits <b>‘MAT 10’ ‘MAT 13’ </b>and <b>‘MAT 18’ </b>annexed to the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU TARRAF.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Exhibit <b>‘MAT 10’ </b>is a letter dated 6<sup>th</sup> July 2020 addressed to PATRICK LAMBERT, LAMBERT AND PARTNERS, the Solicitors for the Plaintiff/Applicant and copied to the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent herein on the subject <b>‘PROPERTY SITUATED AT PENINSULA ROAD SUSSEX,</b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:488.35pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><span style="color:black">FREETOWN BEING PRIVATE PROPERTY OF MOHAMED K. WANSA’, </span></b><span style="color:black">from OSMAN I. KANU acting for and on behalf of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant/Respondent acknowledging receipt of certain documents and outlining the facts of an alleged trespass on and malicious damage relating to the property aforesaid by DAVID CHAMBERS, which said documents have been forwarded to the 1st</span></span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Defendant/Respondent, the said OSMAN I. KANU confirming that the said property is private property, the Courts recognizing that the same belongs to the Plaintiff/Applicant and that until there is evidence in the nature of a Judgement overturning the decisions of the High Court and the Court of Appeal as seen in Exhibits <b>‘MAT 5’, ‘MAT 6’ </b>and <b>‘MAT 8’ </b>annexed to the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU-TARRAF sworn to on the 30<sup>th</sup> October 2020, the property aforesaid remains vested in the Plaintiff/Applicant, confirming that the same is private property.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Exhibit <b>‘MAT 13’ </b>is a letter dated 14<sup>th</sup> August 2020, addressed to the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent herein and copied the Solicitors for the Plaintiff/Applicant on the subject <b>‘PROPERTY SITUATED AT PENINSULA ROAD SUSSEX, FREETOWN BEING PRIVATE PROPERTY OF MOHAMED K. WANSA’ </b>from the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant/Respondent herein, expressing his legal opinion on an investigation of the documentary evidence of title of both the Plaintiff/Applicant and REV. DAVID CHAMBERS to the property at Peninsula Road, Sussex, which is the subject matter of the application herein, which both are claiming ownership of, the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant/Respondent concluding that the said property is private property, that the Courts have confirmed and recognized that the same belongs to the Plaintiff/Applicant, that until there is evidence in the nature of a Judgement overturning the above mentioned decision of the High Court, the property aforesaid, will remain to be vested in the Plaintiff/Applicant, the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant/Respondent further advising the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent that where there is a dispute relating to title to land between private individuals or persons, it is only a court of competent jurisdiction in Sierra Leone that has the constitutional right to adjudicate upon such dispute and not the Ministry of Lands as in this instant case.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:500.95pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Exhibit <b>“MAT 18” </b>is a letter dated 4<sup>th</sup> September 2020 addressed to the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent herein and copied the Solicitors for the Plaintiff/Applicant herein, on the subject <b>‘PROPERTY SITUATED AT PENINSULA ROAD SUSSEX, FREETOWN BEING PRIVATE PROPERTY OF MOHAMED K. WANSA’, </b>from the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant/Respondent, outlining the various acts of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent, the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant/Respondent who claimed the same to be done in the guise of acting for and on behalf of the GOVERNMENT OF SIERRA LEONE and reminding the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent that the property in question is privately owned, which ought to be interpreted as being neither a State Land nor belonging to the Ministry of Lands, Housing and County Planning as reported .</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">inscribed under the instructions and supervision of</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Defendant/Respondent, the same which deliberately side step the legal opinion of the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant/Respondent as expressed in Exhibit <b>‘MAT 13’ </b>aforesaid, the 3<sup>rd</sup> Defendant/Respondent entreating the good office of the 1<sup>st </sup>Defendant/Respondent to kindly refrain from such conduct and to further show respect to the laws of the land and adherence to the Judgements as pronounced by the Courts.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Clearly, the above determines that the property at Peninsula Road, Sussex aforesaid, which is the subject matter of the application herein is not STATE LAND but privately owned. This Court holds the view that the question asked for which the answer aforesaid is given seems to be incomplete. This is so by reason that, if we categorically state that a piece or parcel of land in privately owned, even though it is conclusive that it is not STATE LAND, the recipient of that categorized statement aforesaid, would want to know who privately owns the piece or parcel of land in question. Undisputedly, it is the Courts that would have to answer the question aforesaid. This Court will be remiss in its duty if it simply determines that the property aforesaid, which is the subject matter of the application herein is not STATE LAND and fails to determine and declare ownership of it. If it fails in this regard, further litigation is absolutely possible after it will have determined that the said property is not STATE LAND in view of the fact that apart from the Plaintiff/Applicant herein, Two (2) other contenders claiming ownership of the said property, in persons of ANTHONY SAMU and REV. DAVID CHAMBERS have emerged. In so far as the Plaintiff/Applicant is concerned, this Court needs to ascertain whether as is deposed to in the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU TARRAF sworn to on the 30<sup>th</sup> October 2020, ownership of the property aforesaid, has been judiciously declared and confirmed in favor of the Plaintiff/Applicant.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:479.35pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">As regards the claim for ownership of the property aforesaid, which is the subject matter of the application herein between ANTHONY SAMU and REV. DAVID CHAMBERS, ANTHONY SAMU had claimed, as seen in Exhibit <b>‘MAT 23’ </b>annexed to the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU TARAFF sworn to on the 9<sup>th </sup>November 2020, that he took civil action against REV. DAVID CHAMBERS. He claimed further that based on the investigations conducted by DONALD JONES, the then Assistant Director of Surveys and Lands and CHARLES A. SENESIE a Technical Officer attached to the Ministry of Lands, it was concluded that by their report annexed to the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU TARRAF aforesaid marked Exhibit <b>‘MAT 25’, </b>the rightful owner of the property aforesaid is FODAY JOHN SAMU (Deceased) represented by ANTHONY SAMU(next of kin). Unfortunately, this is only as far as it went. It is not known of the action which the said ANTHONY SAMU claims to have been brought against REV. DAVID CHAMBERS as deposed to by the said ANTHONY SAMU in his affidavit aforesaid, neither has it been shown that ownership of the property aforesaid has been judiciously declared and confirmed by the Courts in favor of ANTHONY SAMU.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">As regards the claim of ownership of the said property between ANTHONY SAMU and the Plaintiff/Applicant herein, it cannot be disputed that, other than the fact that the said ANTHONY SAMU applied to the Courts to be added as a Defendant in the matter between <b>ALFRED P. JOHNSON (DECEASED) &amp; ROBERT JOHNSON </b>as Plaintiffs and <b>CHARLES HUMPAH, MOHAMED GHAZI R. FAIAD &amp; MOHAMED KAMEL WANSA </b>cited above, nothing further was done by the said ANTHONY SAMU in pursuance of his claim to ownership of the property. As was stated above, notwithstanding the fact that he claimed ownership of the property aforesaid, pursuant to which, as he says, he ought to have been made a party to the matter aforesaid and the Judgement in the matter aforesaid, set aside, there is absolutely no evidence presented that the said Judgement was set aside or that the said ANTHONY SAMU pursued his claims to ownership of the property aforesaid and ownership in his favor judiciously declared. The reasons for his failure to pursue his claims to ownership of the said property can very simply be discerned from the facts as presented.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">It is seen from Exhibit <b>‘MAT 23’ </b>annexed to the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU TARAFF sworn to on the 9<sup>th</sup> November 2020, that ANTHONY SAMU had stated that he came to realize that REV. DAVID CHAMBERS was falsely laying claims to the property which is the subject matter of the application herein, sometime in 2015 and that as a result he made a report against REV. DAVID CHAMBERS at the Adonkia Police Station who commenced investigations, the case file of which was subsequently transferred to Lumley Police Station for further investigations and that the section at the Lumley Police station responsible for land grabbing requested the Ministry of Lands for an expert opinion. It is seen further from Exhibit <b>‘MAT 23’ </b>aforesaid that ANTHONY SAMU stated that one PHILIP NEVILLE made a report against him for threatening remarks and Trespass as a result of which he was invited by the police which said invitation he honored and statement was obtained against him, but that since then he has not heard from the police.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">It is seen from Exhibit <b>‘MAT 24’, </b>that the police to whom, the report against ANTHONY SAMU was made by the said PHILIP requested 5^lirustry^6f Lands for an expert opinion as regards inter alia the authenticity <u>of</u> the documents submitted by all parties and the rightful owner of the property which is the subject matter of the application herein. Exhibit <b>‘MAT 24’ </b>is a memorandum dated 5<sup>th</sup> September 2016 from the Head of Crime Management of the Sierra Leone Police to the Director of Surveys and Lands requesting the expert opinion aforesaid.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">As seen from Exhibit <b>‘MAT 24’ </b>aforesaid, several documents were submitted by the said PHILIP NEVILLE, for and on behalf of MOHAMED KAMEL WANSA, the Plaintiff/Applicant herein, by LAMBERT &amp; PARTNERS for and on behalf of the said Plaintiff/Applicant and by ANTHONY SAMU himself. Obviously, by reason of the fact that uncontrovertibly and as seen from Exhibit <b>‘MAT 24’, </b>the said ANTHONY SAMU was copied Exhibit <b>‘MAT 24’, </b>it cannot be true that as stated by him in Exhibit <b>‘MAT 23’, </b>he did not hear from the police since the report by the said PHILIP NEVILLE against him for Threatening Remarks and Trespass was made.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">This Court holds the view that, it is the falsity of the statement made by ANTHONY SAMU, that he did not hear from the police since the report by the said PHILIP NEVILLE against him was made, that exposed the reasons for his failure to pursue his claims to ownership of the property, which is the subject matter of the application herein and exposed the complicity of the officials of the Ministry of Lands to distort the facts. As stated above, ANTHONY SAMU made a report in 2015 against REV. DAVID CHAMBERS in respect of the said property and that subsequently the police to whom the report aforesaid, was made sought the expert opinion of the Ministry of Lands. As stated above further, subsequent to the report made by the said PHILIP NEVILLE for and on behalf of the Plaintiff/Applicant herein against ANTHONY SAMU, the police to whom the said report was made, sought the expert opinion of the same Ministry of Lands in respect of the same property aforesaid on the 5<sup>th</sup> September 2016 as seen from ‘Exhibit <b>‘MAT 24’ </b>aforesaid. Clearly, at the particular point in time, the Ministry of Lands had with them Two (2) separate and distinct request for expert opinion in respect of the same property aforesaid, the 1<sup>st</sup> report made by ANTHONY SAMU and the subsequent one made against ANTHONY SAMU. It cannot be disputed that, the so-called experts in the Ministry of Lands gave expert opinion on the first request and declared ANTHONY SAMU to be the owner of the property aforesaid on the 14<sup>th</sup> November 2016 as seen in Exhibit <b>‘MAT 25’ </b>annexed to the affidavit of MUSTAPHA ABU TARRAF sworn to on the 9<sup>th</sup> November 2020 but to date and since 5<sup>th</sup> September 2016 have failed to give any expert opinion on the subsequent request made, on</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:369.9pt 484.4pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">the said ANTHONY SAMU.                                                         '                              .</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:124%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">This Court holds the view that the failure of the so-called experts in the Ministry of Lands to give expert opinion on the request made by the Police regarding the report made by PHILIP NEVILLE against ANTHONY SAMU seems suspicious and casts considerable doubts on the export opinion given on the 14<sup>th </sup>November 2016 as seen in Exhibit <b>‘MAT 25’ </b>aforesaid.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">This Court holds the view that, it cannot be far from the truth to say that, it is principally, by reason that officials of the Ministry of Lands gave expert opinion on the request made by the Police regarding the report made by ANTHONY SAMU against REV. DAVID CHAMBERS as seen in Exhibit <b>‘MAT 25’ </b>aforesaid, but failed to give expert opinion on the request made by the Police regarding the report made by PHILIP NEVILLE for and on behalf of MOHAMED KAMEL WANZA the Plaintiff/Applicant herein, against the said ANTHONY SAMU, that provoked the said Plaintiff/Applicant to employ the services of S.A. LUSANIE, a Licensed Surveyor to investigate the question of ownership of the property, which is the subject matter of the application herein, the said S.A. LUSANIE who reported on the same as seen in Exhibit <b>‘MAT 22’ </b>aforesaid.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Clearly, it cannot be disputed that, by reason of the fact that since the documents submitted by ANTHONY SAMU on the report made by him would be the same documents submitted by him in respect of the report made against him, the Expert opinion given, as contained in Exhibit <b>‘MAT 25’ </b>aforesaid, that ANTHONY SAMU in the owner of the property aforesaid, it is expected that the expert opinion which was to be given regarding the report against ANTHONY SAMU would be the same as the one already given. Unfortunately, expert opinion in this regard was not given. Regarding the contents of Exhibit ‘MAT <b>25’, </b>it cannot be disputed though that, a Licensed Surveyor given the same circumstance would arrive at the same results as in Exhibit <b>‘MAT 25’ </b>aforesaid, in respect of both the reports, that being ANTHONY SAMU is the owner of the property aforesaid. Unfortunately, this is not the case when S.A. LUSANIE, a Licensed Surveyor investigated ownership of the said property given the same circumstances and declared that the survey plan of the said ANTHONY SAMU presented by him in respect of the said property numbered LS 2141/68 did not exist and was falsified as seen in Exhibit <b>‘MAT 22’ </b>aforesaid.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:24px"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">As stated in Exhibit <b>‘MAT 25’ </b>aforesaid, that the survey plan presented by ANTHONY SAMU and attached to a conveyance dated 3<sup>rd</sup> April 1971 and registered in Volume 246, page 42 in the Books of Conveyances^»3<sup>l</sup>gfft^jjf the property aforesaid is numbered LS 214/68 whereas, the survey plan of the said ANTHONY SAMU presented to the said S.A. LUSANIE in respect of the same property is numbered LS 2141/68. Clearly, it is impossible for ANTHONY SAMU to have presented Two (2) distinct survey plans bearing Two (2) different and distinct numbers in respect of the same property which is the subject matter of the application herein. The pertinent question then is as follows: <b><i>‘was it the survey plan numbered LS 214/68 which as stated by CHARLES A. SENESIE, a Technical Officer in the Ministry of Lands and Surveys, in Exhibit ‘MAT 25’ aforesaid, the said Technical Officer who prepared and submitted Exhibit ‘MAT 25’, be the survey plan attached to the Conveyance dated 3<sup>rd</sup> April 1971’?</i></b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:4px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Unfortunately and on a search at the Registry, this Court found that, no Conveyance whatsoever was registered in Volume 246 page 42 in the Book of Conveyances. A search of the index at the Registry revealed that no Conveyance dated 3<sup>rd</sup> April 1971 and made between SAMUEL JOHNSON and FODAY JOHN SAMU in respect .of and situated at Peninsula Road, Sussex aforesaid, was entered as registered. Further to the findings of this Court aforesaid, from the returns sent by the Ministry of Lands to the Registrar General about surveys done and survey plans signed by Director of Surveys in the Ministry of Lands and Surveys and from enquiries made from the Ministry of Lands and Surveys, this Court found that the survey plan numbered LS 214/68 was surveyed in the name of JOHN MOMOH rather than in the name of FODAY JOHN SAMU as stated by CHARLES A. SENESIE, in Exhibit <b>‘MAT 25’ </b>aforesaid. This Court found further that, contrary to the assertion by CHARLES A. SENESIE, in Exhibit <b>‘MAT 25’ </b>aforesaid, that the piece or parcel of land for which the survey plan numbered LS 214/68 was done is located at Peninsular Road Sussex, at the same location where the property which is the subject of the application herein is located, the piece or parcel of land for which the survey plan numbered LS 214/68 was done is located at George Brook, Freetown. The findings above explains why a search at the Registry, revealed no Conveyance whatsoever registered in Volume 246 page 42 in the Book of Conveyances because if such a Conveyance actually existed, it is the survey plan numbered LS 2141/68, that would be attached to it. But since it is apparent that, no returns would have been sent by the Ministry of Lands to the Registrar General about this survey done and signed by Director of Surveys in the Ministry of Lands and Surveys, by reason that the last survey done in 1968 as determined from the records at the Ministry of Lands, is survey plan numbered LS 1124/68, no</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:93px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection6"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><img align="left" hspace="12" src="file:///C:/Users/DELL/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image020.jpg" style="width:173px; height:1px" /><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Conveyance whatsoever would be registered. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </div> <p> </p> <div class="WordSection7"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:93px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection7"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">sanctioned or authorized by the said CONSTITUTION nor by the PUBLIC <b>LANDS ACT CHAPTER 116 of the LAWS OF SIERRA LEONE 1960 </b>as amended, nor by any other law or nor by custom or nor by convention.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="4"><li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:71px; margin-left:40px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection7"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="tab-stops:61.05pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><a name="bookmark17" id="bookmark17"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">It is hereby <b>DECLARED </b>that the acts of violence, the use of force perpetrated and utilized by the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent with the aid and assistance of armed personnel at the Plaintiff/Applicant’s property aforesaid, in the full view of onlookers, amounts to a breach of the peace in terms of the <b>PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1965 </b>as amended and a contravention of the oath taken by the said 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent on the occasion of him being sworn in as a Minister with Cabinet rank by His Excellency, the President of Sierra Leone, which oath is contained in the Third Schedule to the <b>CONSTITUTION </b>aforesaid specifically, the portion where he swore '.... <b>I will support, uphold and maintain </b>the <b>CONSTITUTION OF SIERRA LEONE as by law established, so help me God’.</b></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:68px; margin-left:40px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection7"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="tab-stops:61.05pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><a name="bookmark18" id="bookmark18"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">It is hereby <b>DECLARED </b>that the unlawful actions and declarations of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent in relation to the Plaintiff/Applicant’s ownership of the property aforesaid are against public policy.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:68px; margin-left:40px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection7"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="tab-stops:61.05pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><a name="bookmark19" id="bookmark19"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">A Perpetual Injunction restraining the Defendants/Respondents and their successors in office and their servants or agents from entering upon and claiming the Plaintiff/Applicant’s property aforesaid, as State Land or in any manner whatsoever, from interfering with its use and enjoyment by the Plaintiff/Applicant is hereby <b>GRANTED.</b></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:40px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection7"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="tab-stops:61.05pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><a name="bookmark20" id="bookmark20"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">That the Plaintiff/Applicant RECOVERS from the 1<sup>s: </sup>Defendant/Respondent, Damages for Trespass to the property at Sussex aforesaid, the same which is assessed by this Court at Ten Million Sierra</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:80px"><span style="page:WordSection7"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><img align="left" hspace="12" src="file:///C:/Users/DELL/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image022.jpg" style="width:170px; height:1px" /><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">Leone Leones (SLL 10,000,000.00).</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="8"><li class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:5px"><span style="page:WordSection7"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:34.45pt"><span style="line-height:122%"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><a name="bookmark21" id="bookmark21"></a><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="color:black">That the Costs of and occasioned by the application herein together with the proceedings herein be <b>BORNE </b>by the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant/Respondent herein, the same which shall be taxed if not agreed upon.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol></div> <p> </p> <div class="WordSection8"> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p style="margin-top:7px; margin-bottom:7px"> </p> </div> <p> </p> <div class="WordSection9">  <p style="margin-bottom:48px"> </p> </div> <p>  </p> <div class="WordSection10"> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p style="margin-top:5px; margin-bottom:5px"> </p> </div> <p> </p> <div class="WordSection11"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:4px; text-indent:7.0pt"><span style="page:WordSection11"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><span style="color:black">AGREE...</span></b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:79px"><span style="page:WordSection11"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><shape filled="f" id="_x0000_s2064" stroked="f" style="position:absolute; margin-left:518px; margin-top:1px; width:25.3pt; height:16pt; z-index:-251643904" type="#_x0000_t202"><textbox inset="0,0,0,0"></textbox></shape></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="page:WordSection11"><wrap anchorx="margin" type="square"><span style="display: none;"> </span><span style="display: none;"> </span><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><span style="color:black">HON. MR. JUSTICE EKUNDAYO E. ROBERTS</span></b></span></wrap></span></p> <p> </p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:4px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><span style="color:black">I AGREE</span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-bottom:99px"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><shape filled="f" id="_x0000_s2065" stroked="f" style="position:absolute; margin-left:519px; width:25.3pt; height:16pt; z-index:-251642880" type="#_x0000_t202"><textbox inset="0,0,0,0"></textbox></shape></span></span></span></p> <p><wrap anchorx="margin" type="square"><span style="display: none;"> </span><span style="display: none;"> </span><img align="left" hspace="63" src="file:///C:/Users/DELL/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image027.jpg" style="margin-left:-40px; margin-right:40px; margin-bottom:27px; width:363px; height:1px" /><shape filled="f" id="_x0000_s2067" stroked="f" style="position:absolute; margin-left:-10px; margin-top:120px; width:348.65pt; height:17.1pt; z-index:251675648" type="#_x0000_t202"><textbox inset="0,0,0,0"><wrap anchorx="margin"></wrap></textbox></shape></wrap></p> <p> </p> <p><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><span style="color:black">HON. MR JUSTICE ALUSINE S. SESAY</span></b></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align:right"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span class="BodyTextChar1" style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><b><span style="color:black">JSC</span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p></p></div> <p> </p> <div class="WordSection12"> <p style="margin-top:2px; margin-bottom:2px"> </p> </div> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p style="margin-bottom:44px"> </p> <p> </p></span></div></div> </div> </div> Tue, 02 Nov 2021 09:31:48 +0000 Leroy 3286 at http://sierralii.gov.sl May v Williams (CIVIL CASE 110 of 1950) [1950] SLSC 21 (08 August 1950); http://sierralii.gov.sl/sl/judgment/supreme-court/1950/21 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">May v Williams (CIVIL CASE 110 of 1950) [1950] SLSC 21 (08 August 1950);</span> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Leroy Spencer</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Mon, 11/01/2021 - 15:18</span> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-search-summary field--type-text-with-summary field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Search summary</div> <div class="field__item"><p><span style="font-size:11.5pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Land Law-estate  tail-words  of  limitation-devise  to  persons  and their legitimate children  after them forever-"forever" limits  devise</span></span><b><span style="font-size:11.5pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> </span></span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">to surviving legitimate children at  death of  last named person.</span></span></p> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-files field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Download</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf"> <a href="https://media.sierralii.org/files/judgments/slsc/1950/21/1950-slsc-21.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=222978">1950-slsc-21.pdf</a></span> </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field__item"><div class="WordSection1"> <p align="center" style="margin-top:7px; margin-left:25px; text-align:center"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:293.85pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:9.0pt">MAY   </span><i><span style="font-size:8.5pt">v.   </span></i><span style="font-size:9.0pt">WILLIAMS,   1950-56   ALR S.L.  55                                   </span><span style="font-size:13.0pt"><span style="position:relative"><span style="top:6.5pt">s.c,</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="margin-top:15px; margin-right:137px; margin-left:25px; text-align:center"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">MAY  <i>v. </i>WILLIAMS</span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top:14px; margin-right:178px; margin-left:68px; text-align:center"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:100%"><span style="tab-stops:275.75pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">SuPREME  CouRT (Kingsley, Ag.C.J.):                                 August 8th, <span style="letter-spacing:-.15pt">1950 </span>(Civil Case No. 110/50)</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top:1px"> </p> <ol><li style="margin-top:7px; margin-right:133px; margin-left:15px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:91%"><span style="tab-stops:41.55pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><shape filled="f" id="_x0000_s1026" stroked="f" style="position:absolute; left:0; text-align:left; margin-left:664px; margin-top:98px; width:17.15pt; height:17.05pt; text-indent:0; z-index:251660288" type="#_x0000_t202"><textbox inset="0,0,0,0"><wrap anchorx="page"></wrap></textbox></shape></span></span></span></span></span><span style="page:WordSection1"><b><span style="font-size:11.5pt"><span style="line-height:91%">Land Law-estate  tail-words  of  limitation-devise  to  persons  and their legitimate children  after them forever-"forever" limits  devise </span></span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:91%">to surviving legitimate children at  death of  last named person:  Where  a testator devises property to his  widow  and  named  children  "and their legitimate children after them  forever,"  the  words  "forever" are words of limitation which limit the devise to those legitimate children of the persons named surviving at the  death  of  the  last  of such persons named; and therefore the property will not devolve to grandchildren of the testator whose  entitled  parents  did  not  so  survive (page 57, line 28-page 58, line 16).</span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-top:10px; text-align:justify; margin-left:15px"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:12.15pt"><span style="tab-stops:41.55pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="font-size:11.5pt">Land Law-joint tenancy-words of severance-co-ownership prima</span></b></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:13.75pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="font-size:11.5pt"><span style="position:relative"><span style="top:-.5pt">facie construed as joint tenancy-words indicating intention to divide </span></span></span></b><span style="font-size:13.5pt">15</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:1px; margin-right:133px; margin-left:56px; text-align:justify; text-indent:.1pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:91%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="font-size:11.5pt"><span style="line-height:91%">property negative joint tenancy-court favours construction creating tenancy in·common </span></span></b><span style="font-size:11.5pt"><span style="line-height:91%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">if </span></span></span><b><span style="font-size:11.5pt"><span style="line-height:91%">ambiguity: </span></span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:91%">Where property is devised to several persons  concurrently,  the  question  whether  such  persons  take  as joint tenants or tenants in common depends on  the  context  of  the whole will; and although </span></span><i><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">prima facie </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:91%">they take as joint tenants, any­</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:13.75pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">thing which in the slightest degree indicates an intention to _divide </span><span style="font-size:15.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Courier New&quot;">20</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-right:134px; margin-left:55px; text-align:justify; text-indent:.7pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:90%"><span style="tab-stops:339.75pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:90%">the  property  negatives  the   idea  of   a   joint  tenancy,   and  in  the  case of ambiguity  the  court  leans  to  the  construction  which  creates  a tenancy  in  common  in  preference  to  that  which  creates   a   joint tenancy   (page  57,  lines  8-21).                                                                ·</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="3"><li style="margin-top:12px; text-align:justify; margin-left:15px"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:61%"><span style="tab-stops:41.55pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="font-size:11.5pt"><span style="line-height:61%">Land Law-joint tenancy-words of severance-devise to persons </span></span></b><span style="font-size:12.5pt"><span style="line-height:61%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="position:relative"><span style="top:5.0pt">25</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:9.7pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="font-size:11.5pt">and their legitimate children after them for ever creates joint tenancy:</span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:1px; margin-right:134px; margin-left:56px; text-align:justify; text-indent:.3pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:91%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:91%">A devise of property to named persons "and their legitimate children after them for ever," shows a clear intention that the property should devolve upon the named persons as  joint  tenants  and, after the  death  of the last survivor of them, to any of their  surviving  legitimate children (page 57, line <span style="letter-spacing:-.15pt">34-.page </span>58, line 13).</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="4"><li style="margin-top:10px; margin-right:133px; margin-left:16px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:95%"><span style="tab-stops:41.3pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="font-size:11.5pt"><span style="line-height:95%">Land Law-tenancy in common-words of  severance-co-ownership prima facie construed as joint tenancy-words indicating intention to divide property negative joint tenancy-court favours construction creating tenancy in common: </span></span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:95%">See [2] above.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> <li style="margin-top:9px; margin-left:19px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:15.3pt"><span style="tab-stops:44.55pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="font-size:11.5pt">Succession-wills-construction-joint tenancy and </span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">tenancy </span><b><span style="font-size:11.5pt">in com­ </span></b><span style="font-size:14.5pt"><span style="position:relative"><span style="top:3.0pt">35</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:56px"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:10.95pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="font-size:11.5pt">mon-co-ownership   prima   facie   construed   </span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">as   </span><b><span style="font-size:11.5pt">joint  tenancy-words</span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:1px; margin-right:115px; margin-left:56px; text-indent:.1pt"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="font-size:11.5pt"><span style="line-height:92%">indicating intention to divide property negative joint tenancy-court favours  construction  creating  tenancy  in  common  </span></span></b><span style="font-size:11.5pt"><span style="line-height:92%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">if  </span></span></span><b><span style="font-size:11.5pt"><span style="line-height:92%">ambiguity: </span></span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:92%">See</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:56px"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:12.9pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">[2] above.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="6"><li style="margin-top:9px; margin-right:134px; margin-left:16px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:95%"><span style="tab-stops:41.9pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="font-size:11.5pt"><span style="line-height:95%">Succession-wills-construction-joint tenancy and tenancy in com­ mon-devise to persons and their legitimate children after  them  for ever creates joint tenancy: </span></span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:95%">See [3] above.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top:1px"> </p> <h1 style="margin-right:135px; text-align:center; margin-left:25px"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:15pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Courier New&quot;"><span style="font-weight:normal">55</span></span></span></span></h1> </div> <p> </p> <div class="WordSection2"> <p class="MsoBodyText"> </p> <p class="MsoBodyText"> </p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top:1px"> </p> <p> </p> <p align="center" style="margin-top:6px; margin-right:30px; text-align:center"><span style="page:WordSection2"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:24.7pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:9.0pt">THE   AFRICAN   LAW REPORTS</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText"> </p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top:1px"> </p> <ol start="7"><li style="margin-top:1px; margin-right:93px; margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection2"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:95%"><span style="tab-stops:71.95pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b><span style="font-size:11.5pt"><span style="line-height:95%">Succession-wills-construction-words of   limitation-devise   to   per­ sons and their legitimate children after them for ever-"for  ever"  limits devise to surviving legitimate children at death of last named person: </span></span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:95%">See [1] above.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top:12px; margin-right:94px; margin-left:63px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-33.05pt"><span style="page:WordSection2"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:101%"><span style="tab-stops:72.9pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.5pt"><span style="line-height:101%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="position:relative"><span style="top:-4.5pt">5               </span></span></span></span></span>In an action between the plaintiff  and  the  defendant,  the Supreme Court was asked to construe  a  clause in  a  will  by  which the testator devised certain property to his widow and three named children  and  then  to "their  legitimate  children  after  them  for ever."</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top:1px; margin-left:63px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection2"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:12.7pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">At  the  time  the  last  of  the  named  children  died,  only  the plaintiff</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:11px"><span style="page:WordSection2"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:17.65pt"><span style="tab-stops:.65in 378.6pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:14.5pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Courier New&quot;"><span style="position:relative"><span style="top:-5.0pt">10  </span></span></span></span>and one other  grandchild  of  the testator  were surviving.           The defen­</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top:1px; margin-right:94px; margin-left:62px; text-align:justify; text-indent:.2pt"><span style="page:WordSection2"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:102%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">dant, who had been married to a grandchild who had not survived, claimed a share in the property  and  the  plaintiff  instituted  the  present proceedings.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:13px; margin-left:9px"><span style="page:WordSection2"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:45.85pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:13.0pt"><span style="position:relative"><span style="top:-4.5pt">15       </span></span></span><b><span style="font-size:11.5pt">Case referred to:</span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:8px; margin-left:62px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection2"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:12.05pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">(1) </span><i><span style="font-size:12.5pt">Public Trustee </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt">v. </span><i><span style="font-size:12.5pt">Clarkson, </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt">[1915] 2 Ch. 216; (1915), 113 L.T. 917,</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:87px"><span style="page:WordSection2"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:16.05pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i><span style="font-size:12.5pt">dictum </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt">of Eve, </span><span style="font-size:16.0pt">J. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">considered.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:17px; margin-left:61px"><span style="page:WordSection2"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:12.55pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i><span style="font-size:12.5pt">O.I.E. During </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt">for the plaintiff;</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:9px"><span style="page:WordSection2"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:14.6pt"><span style="tab-stops:45.95pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.5pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="position:relative"><span style="top:-2.0pt">20       </span></span></span></span><i><span style="font-size:12.5pt">Cole </span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt">for the defendant.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top:15px; margin-left:96px"><span style="page:WordSection2"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">KINGSLEY, Ag.C.J.</span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top:1px; margin-right:95px; margin-left:62px; text-align:justify; text-indent:25.35pt"><span style="page:WordSection2"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:102%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In the  will  of  the  late  Joseph  May,  dated  August  15th,  1888, a clause which I am asked to interpret reads as follows :</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top:1px; margin-right:113px; margin-left:79px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-52.9pt"><span style="page:WordSection2"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:82%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:14.5pt"><span style="line-height:82%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Courier New&quot;"><span style="position:relative"><span style="top:1.5pt">25 </span></span></span></span></span>"I  give  and  bequeath  my  dwelling-house  and  premises  at Liverpool Street, Freetown, to my dear wife Juliana Alexandrina</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top:1px; margin-right:113px; margin-left:78px; text-align:justify; text-indent:.25pt"><span style="page:WordSection2"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:101%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">May, to my sons Joseph Claudius May and Theobald Cornelius May, and to my daughter Sarah Augusta Florence May, to them and their legitimate children after them for ever."</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top:1px; margin-right:95px; margin-left:61px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-39.05pt"><span style="page:WordSection2"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:98%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="position:relative"><span style="top:1.5pt">30 </span></span>The testator died  on  March  8th,  1891,  probate  being  granted  on August 17th of that year.  The  widow  and  three  children  are  all dead. One son, the aforementioned Joseph Claudius May,  was  survived by two children, Clarisa May and  the  plaintiff  in  this  action.    The   other   son,   the   aforementioned   Theobold  Cornelius</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top:1px; margin-right:95px; margin-left:61px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-39.35pt"><span style="page:WordSection2"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="position:relative"><span style="top:.5pt">35 </span></span>May, was survived by  a daughter  Isa  May and also had a son Osoba  May. The former, herself now deceased,  was  married  to  the defendant in this action, a Dr. P.J. Williams, while the latter pre­ deceased his father and  was  survived  by  a  daughter  Tungi  May. The court  is  now  asked  to say  whether  the  defendant,  the said <b><span style="font-size:13.5pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif">P.J.</span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top:2px; margin-right:97px; margin-left:61px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-40.2pt"><span style="page:WordSection2"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:90%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"><span style="line-height:90%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Courier New&quot;">40 </span></span></span>Williams, and the said Tungi May are entitled to share in the above-mentioned  devise.    <span style="font-size:13.5pt"><span style="line-height:90%">It   </span></span>is  not   in   dispute   that   the  testator's</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top:1px"> </p> <h1 style="margin-right:59px; text-align:center; margin-left:25px"><span style="page:WordSection2"><span style="font-size:15pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Courier New&quot;"><span style="font-weight:normal">56</span></span></span></span></h1> </div> <div class="WordSection3"> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top:1px"> </p> <p> </p> <p style="margin-top:6px; margin-left:212px"><span style="page:WordSection3"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:433.85pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><group coordorigin="433,-966" coordsize="3188,1269" id="_x0000_s1027" style="position:absolute; left:0; text-align:left; margin-left:29px; margin-top:-64px; width:159.4pt; height:63.45pt; z-index:251662336"><shape id="_x0000_s1028" style="position:absolute; left:432; top:-966; width:900; height:385" type="#_x0000_t75"></shape><line from="553,303" id="_x0000_s1029" strokeweight="1.52644mm" style="position:absolute" to="553,-581"><line from="1332,-879" id="_x0000_s1030" strokeweight=".59333mm" style="position:absolute" to="3620,-879"><wrap anchorx="page"></wrap></line></line></group><b><span style="font-size:8.5pt">MAY   </span></b><i><span style="font-size:10.0pt">v.  </span></i><b><span style="font-size:8.5pt">WILLIAMS,   </span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt">1950-56   ALR S.L.  55                                                                 </span><span style="font-size:13.0pt"><span style="position:relative"><span style="top:7.0pt">s.c.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top:15px; margin-right:66px; margin-left:78px; text-indent:-.25pt"><span style="page:WordSection3"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:102%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">grandchildren mentioned above and the girl Tungi May are the legitimate children of their respective parents.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:110px"><span style="page:WordSection3"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:14.55pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:13.5pt">It </span>is obvious I think that the answer to the question <b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">must,</span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top:1px; margin-right:7px; margin-left:76px; text-indent:.85pt"><span style="page:WordSection3"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:100%"><span style="tab-stops:right 488.85pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">primarily at any rate, depend  on  whether  the  widow  and  children mentioned in the disputed clause took the property as joint tenants or           5</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-top:1px; margin-right:66px; margin-left:77px; text-indent:-.45pt"><span style="page:WordSection3"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:105%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:13.0pt"><span style="line-height:105%">as tenants in common. In 34 <i>Halsbury's  Laws of  England, </i>2nd  ed. at  354, it is there stated :</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-right:77px; text-align:right"><span style="page:WordSection3"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:13.75pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">"Where  property  is  given  to  several  persons  concurrently,</span></span></span></span></p> <p align="right" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top:1px; margin-right:76px; text-align:right"><span style="page:WordSection3"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">the  [question]   whether  these  persons   take  as   joint  tenants or</span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top:1px; margin-left:93px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection3"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:14.45pt"><span style="tab-stops:476.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">tenants  in common  . .  .  <span style="letter-spacing:.15pt">depend[s]  </span>on  the  context  of the whole                                                                         <b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">10</span></b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-right:77px; margin-left:92px; text-align:justify; text-indent:2.2pt"><span style="page:WordSection3"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:101%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:14.5pt"><span style="line-height:101%">w:ill. </span></span><i>Prima  facie  </i>they  take  as  joint  tenants;  but  it  has  been said that, in considering  the  context,  anything  which  in  the slightest degree indicates an intention to divide  the  property negatives the idea of a joint tenancy, and that in a case of</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:92px"><span style="page:WordSection3"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:15.2pt"><span style="tab-stops:475.45pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">ambiguity  the  Court  leans  to  the  construction  which  creates  a                                                                         <b><span style="font-size:13.5pt">15</span></b></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top:1px; margin-right:66px; margin-left:92px"><span style="page:WordSection3"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:73%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">tenancy <span style="font-size:12.5pt"><span style="line-height:73%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,sans-serif"><span style="position:relative"><span style="top:6.5pt">,,</span></span></span></span></span>in common in preference to that which creates a joint tenancy.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:77px"><span style="page:WordSection3"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:15.9pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:13.0pt">In  <i>Public  Trustee  </i>v.  <i>Clarkson  </i>(1),  Eve,  </span><span style="font-size:17.0pt">J.,  </span><span style="font-size:13.0pt">referring  to  this point,</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:76px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection3"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:14.6pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">said   ([1915]   2  Ch.  at   219;  113  L.T.  at   919):   "[T]he  Court will  be</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top:1px; margin-left:75px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection3"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">astute to discover any indication of an intention on the part of the 20</span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top:1px; margin-right:61px; margin-left:75px; text-align:justify; text-indent:.05pt"><span style="page:WordSection3"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:101%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">testator  to  create  a  tenancy  in  common."  Doubtless  with  an  eye on the  list  given  in  <i>Jarman  on  Wills,  </i>both  6th  and  7th  editions,  of  words  which  will create  a tenancy  in common,  a list  which Eve,</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:75px"><span style="page:WordSection3"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:15.75pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:17.0pt">J.  </span>in  the  above-mentioned  case  described   <i>(ibid.)  </i>as  "more  or less</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:75px"><span style="page:WordSection3"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:14.75pt"><span style="tab-stops:473.65pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">exhaustive,"   Mr.  Cole  asked   me  in  construing   the  said clause  to                                                                             25</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top:1px; margin-right:66px; margin-left:75px; text-indent:-.25pt"><span style="page:WordSection3"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:103%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">insert the words  "each  of'  before  the  word  "them"  which  appears in the fifth and sixth lines of it.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-right:63px; margin-left:75px; text-indent:24.35pt"><span style="page:WordSection3"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:102%"><span style="tab-stops:99.55pt 115.6pt 156.65pt 186.7pt 246.85pt 275.65pt 289.65pt 334.4pt 372.55pt 406.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">I  can see  no reason  why I should.            The whole will as I read it points            I   think    just   precisely    the            opposite    way. The           <span style="letter-spacing:-.15pt">testator</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-right:10px; margin-left:74px; text-indent:.45pt"><span style="page:WordSection3"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:102%"><span style="tab-stops:473.1pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">apparently  had  other  children  besides  those  named  in the disputed                                                                           <span style="letter-spacing:-.45pt">SO </span>clause; anywhere any property was to be,  or  could  be, sold,  and  the proceeds distributed in shares, he has clearly said so, as in the case</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-left:73px"><span style="page:WordSection3"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:14.9pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">for example  of  his  property  at  Charles  Street, or in  the  case of  <b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">his</span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top:1px; margin-left:73px"><span style="page:WordSection3"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:376.35pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">household  furniture  and  other  miscellaneous  articles.                                                              Furthermore</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top:1px; margin-left:74px"><span style="page:WordSection3"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="tab-stops:472.9pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">the  words  "to  them"  following  on  the   absence  of  any mention  of                                                                             35</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top:1px; margin-right:63px; margin-left:73px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-.1pt"><span style="page:WordSection3"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:101%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">any precise shares are either superfluous,  or mean  just precisely what I think is clear from the context of the will was  the  testator's  intention, namely, that the widow and the  three  children  named should hold the property as joint tenants.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top:1px; margin-left:104px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection3"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">I am fortified in this view by the implication of the words 40</span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top:1px; margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"><span style="page:WordSection3"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">"after them" which also appear in the disputed clause. Unless there</span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top:1px"> </p> <p align="center" style="margin-top:1px; margin-right:315px; margin-left:323px; text-align:center"><span style="page:WordSection3"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">57</span></span></span></span></p> </div> <p class="MsoBodyText"> </p> <p class="MsoBodyText"> </p> <p class="MsoBodyText"> </p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top:1px"> </p> <p align="center" style="margin-right:247px; margin-left:221px; text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><group coordorigin="10423,-945" coordsize="1020,13017" id="_x0000_s1032" style="position:absolute; left:0; text-align:left; margin-left:695px; margin-top:-63px; width:51pt; height:650.85pt; z-index:251665408"><shape id="_x0000_s1033" style="position:absolute; left:10423; top:-945; width:1020; height:866" type="#_x0000_t75"></shape><shape id="_x0000_s1034" style="position:absolute; left:11327; top:10976; width:77; height:1096" type="#_x0000_t75"></shape><line from="11365,10976" id="_x0000_s1035" strokeweight=".42403mm" style="position:absolute" to="11365,-79"><wrap anchorx="page"></wrap></line></group><span style="position:absolute; margin-left:1057px; margin-top:2447px; width:102px"><span style="z-index:251665408"><span style="left:0px"><span style="height:1302px"><img src="file:///C:/Users/Owner/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image008.gif" style="width:68px; height:868px" /></span></span></span></span><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt">THE  AFRICAN  LAW </span></b><span style="font-size:13.0pt">REPORTS</span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top:1px"> </p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top:1px; margin-right:85px; margin-left:62px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-.1pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:101%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">is some reason why I should  interpose  the  words  "each  of"-no proper reason has been adduced for  my  doing  so  and  I  can  see  none  myself-these  words  can  in  my  view  in  their  particular context  mean  only  one  thing  and  that  is "after  they  have  all died."</span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top:1px; margin-right:86px; margin-left:61px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-32.5pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:102%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">5 In other  clauses  the  testator  has  been  careful  enough  to  mention  some of his grandchildren  by  their  respective  names,  and  I  hold that the implication of the words "after them," taken in conjunction with the words "to them" to  which  I  have  already  referred,  is that the  testator  intended   that  the  premises   at   Liverpool  Street should</span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-right:86px; margin-left:62px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-.55in"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:101%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>10 </b>go  to  the  widow  and  the  three  children  named  as  their  joint property, holding as joint tenants, and after them, or in other words after the death of the last survivor amongst them,  to  any  then surviving legitimate children borne of the three children named.</span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top:1px; margin-left:95px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">As I look at the will as a whole, I think it is clear that the</span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top:1px; margin-right:87px; margin-left:62px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-40.05pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:102%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">15 words "for ever" are and were  intended  to  be  purely  words  of limitation, and I so hold.</span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top:1px; margin-right:86px; margin-left:61px; text-align:justify; text-indent:26.45pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:101%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">The last of the testator's children to die was Sarah Augusta Florence May who died in 1949, and as at her  death  the  only surviving legitimate grandchildren concerned were Clarisa and</span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top:1px; margin-right:85px; margin-left:61px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-38.9pt"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:102%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>20 </b>Claude Joseph May it follows that the answer as  to  whether  the defendant or the girl Tungi May are entitled to share in the premises mentioned in the disputed clause must be in the negative.</span></span></span></p> <p><i><span style="font-size:13.5pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Order accordingly</span></span></i></p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-law-report-citations field--type-string field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Law report citations</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item">1950-1956 ALR SL 55</div> </div> </div> <div class="views-element-container"><div class="view view-eva view-download-conditional view-id-download_conditional view-display-id-entity_view_1 js-view-dom-id-f6c0ac995f0ad88845090f93bdb6a1c469c926fc4db1fa04b7b453e30d057cab"> <div><div class="views-field views-field-views-conditional-field"><span class="field-content"><div class="WordSection1"> <p align="center" style="margin-top:7px; margin-left:25px; text-align:center"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="tab-stops:293.85pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:9.0pt">MAY   </span><i><span style="font-size:8.5pt">v.   </span></i><span style="font-size:9.0pt">WILLIAMS,   1950-56   ALR S.L.  55                                   </span><span style="font-size:13.0pt"><span style="position:relative"><span style="top:6.5pt">s.c,</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="margin-top:15px; margin-right:137px; margin-left:25px; text-align:center"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">MAY  <i>v. </i>WILLIAMS</span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" class="MsoBodyText" style="margin-top:14px; margin-right:178px; margin-left:68px; text-align:center"><span style="page:WordSection1"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:100%"><span style="tab-stops:275.75pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">SuPREME  CouRT (Kingsley, Ag.C.J.):