Adama Mansaray v Ibrahim Mansaray (CIV APP 31 of 1981) [1982] SLCA 1 (4 March 1982)

eh “phe. hip 1/8, ; : Q 5 Behe 4 OO vein COUNT OF APPYAL Fon SIERM LEong wet | ConA it { Hon. Me. Juotice.Kon.B.0.During . Joh. . ~

j! "Hon. Mes Justice.s.1, ial | ON Ted vis | "Hon. MriJustice. M.S. turay = Ve. i 7 | f BELWEEN, : ADAM MAUNSARAY - APPELLANT, " i. ; Rabils. AND oe | | al nm IDRAWLM MANSARAY ~ RESPONDENT! - ot ? i i i Ee al uiB. Jenkins-Jolinston. Bsq for, Appellant : . ; ‘ . | fall : SoM. Touray Esq for Respondent wes deputised " ‘2 . | 1S "os loy Gt. Bette Bea. \ Pers , ah i. i ~ TRuting delivered thw 4th day of thwoh, “1902 - , Aa : ” Ken During Joh. This 19 an Appeal againot a a ‘ | i - the oxdex of Johngon|J in the ligh Court made“on ° ae | ! ? &y .application for Wetag! of execution of. Tuag- - | ze | ie: sooty dcliverea by the caid Judge on the 20th.of | a A | (i April 1981. Anongst other ‘things ordered’ by” a 4 ee | f | 7} Joluison J in his Judgment dated 28th Aprdly, - : 2 | : a r, i . \" 4901 were that the Appellant do executa! a. Vonvey~.<j- = ” i A ance of the. Tand and premises: No. 120; and '42n ae Ls 4 : : lleneesey Street Kington, Freetown to the Pospona~ i ei Ji. . ent withing 7 days and that if the Appellant cahesal . : plier. failo to execute the Conveyance ee aa _ hy. & “land and premises-No. 120 and 12D'lonegsy ‘Street; * i ia King Tor be the Reaponueny within 7 ayer vthen., 4] ‘he tater and Regidtras to ordered ty.exaciite! * we oe the Conveyance assuming the Jand and promises aye ij . situate lying and being and Ienown as 120, 120,88 wt ; “ Hennessy Street Kingtom in tho Nana o£. ‘he snvent 1 4 i and to the Respondent dnmodiatoly,therearter,. = she. Oi the 2th of Apett, 1984 tho pedo Hedge J : un Appeal to this Court. the Appellant, apphloae i { * tor clay of execution of tho Judyiwent-of" the a : : toa . whee we ef 0 Bande

i” .oL April, 19814 and the Learned, Judge Ao ‘ i Johnson J amongst other 1-49 ordeted that . : i, | the Mater and Nogiotri: do execute the : ol | |p... Conveyance purguant to paragraph (three) | (3) of this Judgment dated 28th April, 1981 i ‘th forthwith and that after due registrating | : fl II" i of the said Conveyance by the Plaintifle . | : | ; | iL Respondent, the said Conveyance de kept by | i 7 i. : the Mister and Registrar, High Court, pend- . | i ; Ej cre i ing the determination of the Appeal to the. pe . | Aol sterra Leone -Ccurt of ‘Appeal", ; | Learned Counsel for the Appellant before / : 4 = | + us argued that the Order of Sth May, 1981 . . | which purported to grant a stay of execution ~ | | \ Ei to the Appellant herein was not in law or in : | = \ | | fact a stay of execution since i} ordered ~ sia | fi y compliance with the Judgmdnt of the 28th of t {i April, 1984 which wag veing appealed against. . ° Hy | We do agree with Learned Councel. ‘the | I i i : Learned Judge way in fact saying that the i i ‘11> appetaant mst do what he ordered regardless | : : _ \: ‘ “ef the fact. that an Appool had been Ledyoa 7 : | : _ and also the consent to the ALftaavit evidence - a \ _ before ‘him dn support of the application fox ee ° “stay. We have read ama Consider the aALLid. ae I. avit in- support off the application for stayr \ and also the bak in opposition and A also considered what was argued by Coungel. : . 1 on eithex side and have come’ to tho Coneluae | . fon that a stay ought to ta cranted and we on .* ; | } the 17th of July, 1982 accordingly set aside ' | i the Ordex of Johngon J made the &rn of May, ; / : | 1982, : : rH , oa ‘i

Rim tt = Th 7 We are of the opinion tha: in cases: where” \\ 1 i I there is an order transferring Real property ii i or an interest therein or ther2under by Deed ' P i. , of Conveyance or otherwise or Order for gale — \ ‘ where an Appeal has been lodged our Courts : i should nos wendily refuse stay because tho , ae property or right thereunder or therein be~ : \ s fore the final. determina ‘ion ef tha Appeal : | i it migiit have passed to a bona £:de purchaser an { te : for value who has no notice of an Appeal pend— ” . i i ry : | ing: relating to such property. Perhaps the Boe i | autiorities concern might consider legislat- i : i i °. ing ‘that before execution of Judgment or * . . i : Order relating to Real property vy way of Deed “ oo i of Conveyance ytransfer of interest,or sale of - : . i H ie the said property after such Judgments or : ; lt i : Orders have been made by a Competent ae : : | yA authority that a Memorial of Tudgment should ~ : ; have been lodged with the Registrar-General ; : oe and make it imperative on the part of anyone 4 ; | { ; who would venefit by such Deed of Conveyance, | | 7 | i _ transfer of Anterest or | to search the ! : ; : i Records containing Memorial of Judgment. . 1 ; | 7 We ordered that the Master and Registrar : ' of the High Court bring up forsedheellation “7 1 by court Registrar: of- the Court of Appeal | ‘ i Conveyance No. 596/C1 at page 16 of volume i : 329 and that the Registre-General cancel | heat the said Deed in his Book of Conveyances: ” ' We algo ordered that (the Appellant be xe- | i steniued Som parklug with bho property or any interest he my have thereunder. These | . a orders ..2 are of the opinion will oaLoguard | a ' a ‘ . sob t r | : J

yn ecm aN) ‘ia soe (2

! . Ho, ‘ H hi % | iid the ‘ntorest of both parties ‘unti2 the oa i final determination of the Appeal. tie _ i 4 ; made no order 18 to Cost- - . | | . # : . eo il : sat 1 ih : : a

BL . . a : eo Justice of the Apyeal © 9 °°” | :

in os Justice of the Appeal oe ‘ 1 ee i i Justice of the Appeal. . | ae ai . a Wate \ | {I : : | | ' mon

; oe ; . po yetk soe at ; e i i : . je? i e "s te | q a the e f