Abu Kamara v Amadu Gboyo (CIV APP 2 of 1980) [1981] SLSC 3 (13 July 1981)

IN THE SUPRENS COURT OF STERRA LEONE - CORAM The Hon, Mr. Justice ©. Livesey Luke = Chief Justice The Hon, Mr. Justice CoA, Harding = IS ,C. * The Hon, Mr. Justice 0,B,R, Tojan = 3,8,0, ‘The Hon, Mre.Jyustice A,V,A, Awunor-Rennor - J,5,C, The Hon, Mr. Justice Ken 2,0, During = 3A, | Civ, APP. No,2/80 } BeTvEEN: ABU KAMARA = APPELLANT | ano

| HI AMADU GBOYO - RESPONDENT | | Mar 4,2, Seryy Kanal for the Appellant i" | My, PsMy Sanow for the Respondent | ‘ Judgment Salivered this Jith dav of July, 198 ol | | gf) FRA Agaaats On the 22nd day of May 1972 the Yont Local Ht ]. tregetnartes referred to as the Plaintiff) and Abu Kamara | “fF | (hereinafter referred to as the Defendant), The plaintiff's | AP) giain against the defendant vas for unlawfully brushing theif ||| | cafe tends the Yont tecat Court, after having heard the parties and Wy sf. | Sudgmont wow dn the following terms: hl | Bee Meneinn at wn Senki aninislsink Til | ee with members. The Court President (now | e Chairman) informed the Court that | ae according to the case between Amadu Stoyo Aine of Mayobo and Abu Kanara of Mabiila, the eee Court had found out that the defendant Abu th] Gr Kamara of Mabilla has right in the case, ie because the Court has found out that the i | pe ool boundry of Pa Sheka Maila which the witnesses | || ' doscribed from the river sssssesesseeeeseees Wi | a By pet 1110.00 Fi | eee Hit |) | Sa HL) |. Saale ee

E and Konte and confirmed that this was the boundary which the Mapiite end Meotray pecyle ewore for-) ‘us| ceueou wep 2 bocebtet a thie voundary 10 because 4¢ has taxen over a ee eae peorie wore taving aj1nnd) lagcoptine to i i the evidence of the witnesses, Pa Alimamy al Kadase lvealero) section, Shia oho: tas tie | caches moved care aac ny eeeas Fete cars a is bush after the swearing, Since they had sworn, ell Fadalactighelany Sepaseitaat)censt oer uaa i kone in this bush to judge them, The vitnesses at | have told me that the defendants have svorn for | 4 teselenpe ene ue edalacelcohciars costs 2-8 be) Beas ae Taormino | Tulasastaienne, ani_as present. bea tbe Doulagg? i! represent him while the defendants' peoplo wore ae avorn for the boundagy between then and the i | i | Heeca Yogpie, ALL these made me go give Abu ! its PR heer a i HHi)| 2 sais vecataey veslmnidjpeesaa’ Cull ear #tan or ‘ | | i orton fenetaeete neces 65 eaaional { Li | ie the law. } ine: H,R,T,P, ~ Abdulat Tunny : TTI] [MESH xe tn scntne cate jutgnent of soe Tons toma covet ams”. | | 1) | HEE ame praintise apponted to the District Appeal Court, Tie record 7 1 || | JB toce not contain the notice and grounds of apbeat, but bovever, 1) ||| | MBE lithe teaxned Magistrath re-hoard the whole case and heard 4 | |B tssnsen ena oe purtin am parvuaoe of fatto Yo Oe 1 | Local Courts (Amendment) Act 1966 which enacts that ~ i Nill ae ¥ ; Mises |

7 Ml 4

ah Fe ant + “In any such appeal the District Appeal 4 Court shall re-hear the whole case and F hear any additional witnesses called by * ‘ tho parties oven though they did not give evidence in the Court below," Gf eppeat ds to be found in Section 29(1) of the Local Courts Act | } «1963 whieh provides that: ait "As from the commencement of this Agt, | | Appeal Court which consist of the Police | Magistrate for each district sitting with | | || two Asgossors selected by him froma list HI ox ecperthyadicus comer f ine dccwn up uy the Rv) | Fe District officer: By | appears that no question of customary law | | i will arise the Magistrate my sit without Hit | Assessors," ni Soetion 25(2) of the same Act states that "the Assessors shall ‘i “FP aavise Magistrate on questions of customary law but the | “}) doetsion shatt be vested exclusively in the Magistrate who shall 1 | |. ga After having heard the parties and their witnesses, and (|) | He court and substituted therefor a deciaration of titie in favour | [of the ptaintare, Beil itl | ape ‘he defendant gave an oral notice of appeal to appeal PULP] | SHE, sextass ene cecteion of the aearned Magtatrate to the Local 11/1) | GE appease Division of the High Court on the following grounds: Sal IM 2escee0 ie |

- 112 = WU ‘

(1) Pa Atimany Koroma 12 a relative of the appetiant.

(2) It was Pa Alimamy Koroma who forced & us to avear on oath,

(3) The appeiiant's father was a momber of the local Court that gave decision in the case between Sheka Marta and Pa Atimany Koroma. i | : At the Local Appeals Division of the High Court, tne | 4 parties were represented by Counsel, It does not appear from Ht the records that the grounds of appeal were amended but the | | I] revords show the following grounds of appeal: ' 3 (a) That the decision of the Tonko1ii1 District | | j Appent Court was unreasonable and gould atl | not be supported having regard to tho Pay | Oy] ab evidence, | | | (>) That the learned Principal Magistrate Me: 3 erred in holding that "e vas wrong i" Ly] se therefore for the lover Court to conolude | tt | ae that because the respondents (now appellants) 1 | i succeeded in an action against Pq Alimany Kerona |) 11 @

(0) "yet the learned Principal Magistrate fatied i Ih | | ae to consider the appellant's (then vespondent's) TH 4 aefence. | 1H | ee Fhe appeal vas heard by X4ogu J, sitting with two Assessors. nial | | Sadgttont vas delivered on 15th January 1976 setting aside the | ‘|| | EEE) of tie Tons, Local Court. | | | F Appeals Division of the High Court, The grounds of appeal are:— Lal} | Ii30¢5000 rl | | ap 5 i | || 3 | j

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