Abu B. Lugbo v Rev Archibald G. John (SC CIV APP 5 of 1993) [2000] SLSC 20 (20 January 2000)

Q ‘BLREE SUPREME COURT OF sTERRA LzoKe servein ABU BIACK LUGBO - -DEFENDANT/APPLICANT AND REV. ARCHIBALD GAMBALA JOHN =~ PLATNTTFE/RESPONDENT comaas = HON. MR. JUSTICE S. BECCLES DAVIES ~ c.g. 7 HON, MR. JUSTICE $.C.E. waRNa 9 TSC. : HON. MR. JUSTICE A. B. TIMBO = TS.Ce Pesaeelt lrccne Dr. Marcus Jones for Respondent

Beccles Davies

This application is made under Rule 60 of the Rules of this Court, for a Stay of execution of a judgnent of the Court of Appeal dated 17 June 1993. Re history The Reverend Archibald Ganbala John as executor of the estate of the late Reverend Gustavus Adeau John, instituted proceedings against the defendants ‘bu Black, Allie Fofana and Lanjn Dankeh (the applicants! herein) that he is ‘titled in tee eiaple in possession to ell that plece or parcel of land lying “sd being at Floregusta Farm, Off Kissy Read, Freetown in the Western Area of “ltrra Leone and bounded as follows ~ On the North by a strean 1065 feet and by ; Penerty now or lately in the possession of W. Cole and otherwise 545 feet, on 8s Bast by private property and State property 406.1 feet, on the South by State Property 1527.8 feet, and on the West by property now or lately in the possession “Touran Bay College 237.2 feet and as to its position dimension and boundaries We nore Particularly shown verged RED in survey plan nunbered 1.S. 517/81 “sing tn ann an area of 7.6270 acres fac

> Te matter was heard by Golley J in the High Court. ‘The learned Judge Y ajsnisoed the plaintiff's clain on the ground that the latter had "failed to prove his claim.'"

the plaintiff appealed to the Court of Apzesl against the learned Judge's judgnente The appeal was heard by the Court (Thompson-Davis, J.S.C., Adophy ond Gelaga-King, JJ-A). The.Court reversed Golley Je judgnent, dclaring the plaintiff the omer of the land in dispute.

‘The defendants have eppeoled to this Court, on four grounds. An application was then made to the Court of Appeal for a stay of executicn of ite judgnents the application was refused. — i

- fhe application

This application is made in consequence of the Court of Appeal's refusal to grant a stay of execution. Rule 60 under which this application is made provides ~

"60(1) A civil eppeal shall not operate as a stay of execution or of proceedings under the judgnent or decision appealed against except in so far as the Supreaé Court or Court of Appeal may othervise order.

(2) Subject to the provisions of these Rules and to any other enactment governing the same, on : application for stay of execution or proceedinge shall first be made to the Court of Appeal and if that Court refuses to grant the application, the applicant shall be entitled to renew the application before the Suprene Court for : determination." The defendants seek the following orders - . ™. An interim stay of execution of the judgnent of this Honourable Court dated the 17 day of June 1993 pending the hearing and deternination of: thie application.

2 An Order that the execution of the Jue, 17 €89 of Sune 1993 ant at vg iment dated the thereto be stayed pending the ae See tots Seed abbas ee ering and determination Reskondents eppeat to the Suprene Court of Sierra Leone, 3+ And also for an Order that the costs of and occasioned by this application be costs in the cause," the Issue . ~ Tae isoue here is whether fron the facts deposed, thie Court can grant a stay of execution pening the determination of the substantive matie’betore ite Dr. Marcus-Jones, Counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that there must be exceptional circumstances arising out of the application to enable thie Court to ~ grant the application. Dr, Marcus-Jones has urged this Court to adopt the practice in appeals from the English Court of Appeal to the House of Lords. The notes to order 58 rule 12 (1960 English Practice) under the rubric ‘Stay pending appeal to the House of Lords! state - "@ stay will not be granted cave in very exceptional circunstances, such as where execution weuld destroy the eubject matter of the action or deprive the appellant of the means of prosecuting the appeal eeeeerecereserel™ Kr, Turay for the defendants (applicants) subaitted that there were exceptional sireusstances in this case, as untold hardship would be done to 'bona fide purchaser: for value! who are not parties to the action. The expression "very exceptional circunstances' has not been defined. Te eaaple given in the notes in my view are not exhaustive. Each application Sst turn on its own peculiar facts. TNE SORTER OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY defines “eweeptionsl! as 5 "of the nature of or forming an exceptions unusual" Fe . Phovveee

= Cn ie

. ty-eight Deeds of Conveyance , sgone twenty” Se had been executed by the defendant Abu Black nt purchasers since 1982, ; “ 7 gq aiffere!

982. There is contention as to the quantum of the sd. T am of the vi, ond he owne Sw Shat the circumstances on thie cago are very hat a stay of 4 goomual and oY OF execution of the Judgnent of the Court of Appeal ougat ending the di i to be granted Pt F termination of the sitstantive appeal by this Court. I would grant the’ application and make the following Orders -

1. Te damages of Le5C0,000 awarded by the Court of Appeal to be paid to Plaintire respondent; the amount to be refunded in case the appeal~succeeds, 2 pers 2, The costs awarded by the Court of Appeal in that Court . and in the Court below if already taxed should be paid . : to the plaintiff's solicitor on his personal undertaking Pe . to refund them if the appeal succeeds.

3. The costs of this application to vel plaintiff in any event. Whip Series Pape

194. Ton. Justice S- Yeccles Davis Cw. fee boa time s30 . Mone Tysticd .c67f tame JIC. seeeees te de$ tae Monetredustica .3+ Bimbo I3C.

The pages read for this report end here. The judgment continues in the PDF.