Ade Roberts And Another v Elizabeth F.O. Williams (CIV APP 30 of 2007) [2010] SLCA 18 (26 January 2010)

oc pe v. APP. NO. 30/2007 INTHE COURT OF APPEAL FOR SIERRA LEONE {CIVIL Division) ETWEEN: ADE ROBERTS AND CECIL ROBERTS : APPELLANTS AND ELIZABETH F.O. WILLIAMS ~~ RESPONDENT (CORAM: HON. MRS. JUSTICE S. BASH-TAQI, JSC — PRESIDING HON MR JUSTICE N. C. BROWNE-MARKE- JA HON MRS JUSTICE A SHOWERS, J Counsel

5. M. Sesay, Esq. for the Appellants V.V. Thomas, Esq. for the Respondent suoguurwt oeuveneo on Tue 7-6" DAY OFJANUARY 2010 ‘S. BASH-TAQI, JSC:- This is an appeal against the judgment of the Hon. Mr. Justice Kamanda, .A, delivered on the 5" June 2007.

pya specially endorse we of Summons dated 13” May 2004, issued in the High the Respondent (Elizabeth F.

0. Willi inti Court, vveinat the Appellants, th ©. Williams), then Plaintiff, instituted the action 36 » then, defendants, for the following reliefs: Jaration that she is enti ,

1, Adecl : she bs entitled to the piece or parcel of land situate lying and being No 22 Goderich Street Freetown.

2. Recovery of Possession of the said piece or parcel of land.

3, An Account of all rents collected by the Defendants from tenants since the death of Dora Roberts.

4, An Order for the payment by the Defendants to the Plaintiff of all monies found to be due to her on the taking of such accounts

5, An Injunction restraining the Defendants their servants, agents or privies from trespassing on or in any other way interfering with the Plaintiff's right interest or estate in the said piece or parcel of land.

6. Further Order of other relief.

Inher Particulars Claim, the Respondent, (Plaintiff), alleged, inter alia,

1. That by a Deed of Gift dated 10" February 1978 made by one Sarah Thompson Smart offt/e'described as Donor “Ine part and the Respondent and Dora Roberts described as Donees of the other part registered as No 20/78 in Vol. 55 page 64 in the Books of Voluntary Conveyances the premises at no 22 Goderich Street Freetown were conveyed to the Respondent and Dora Roberts.

2. That the Respondent and Dora Roberts held the fee simple estate inthe property from 10” February 1978 until the death of Dora Roberts in 1999 in | ‘the United States

3, That Dora Roberts during her life lived on the 1" Floor of the premises together with her children, who are the Appellants in this appeal and rented the ground and 2 Floors of the premises and other living quarters in the compound.

4, That the said Dora Roberts shared some of the rents accruing from the rented portions of the premises with the Respondent from time to time and uses the balance for the repairs to the premises.

5, That Dora Roberts left Sierra Leone after 1996, leaving the Defendants, who are her children, in occupation of the first Floor of the premises up to the date of the Writ, and they continued to let the unoccupied portions and to. collect all the rents accruing thereform.

6. On 14" September 2004, the Respondent through her Solicitors wrote to the Appellants informing them that on the death of Dora Roberts, their mother, her interest in the property accrued to the Respondent by survivorship as the said property was held by the Appellant and the Respondent as joint tenants and she demanded possession of the premises from the Appellants as sole owner.

7. On 11 November 2004, the Appellants’ Solicitors acknowledged receipt of the letter but did nothing else, other than promising to communicate with the Respondent's Solicitor. Nothing further was heard or done by their

Solicitors to the above demand.

Appearance was entered on behalf of the Appellants, but no defence was filed.

On 29" April 2005, pursuant to an application by the Respondent, Kamanda,

1A, after hearing arguments from V. V. Thomas granted the Respondent leave

to enter judgment on the 4 May 2005 for the several reliefs claimed in the her writ. The Appellants and their Solicitors were not represented at the

IB bearing of the application for judgment, although their Solicitors had been

| served with the Notice of Motion and its supporting affidavit.

| a May 2005, Solicitors for the Appellants filed a Notice of Motion applying fora Stay of Execution of the judgment of 4 May 2008 and for leave toargue and oppose the application for leave to enter judgment filed by the respondents on 26" May 2005. On 13 July 2005, Kamands, J, ordered that the Order of 4” May 2005 be set aside and the Appellants given leave to defend the action. The Learned Judge further ordered that all rents that had been collected and were yet to be collected from the premises by the

BD appellants be paid to the Judicial Sub-Treasury.

Pursuant to the said order the Appellants filed a Statement of Defence and

Counter-Claim. In their Defence, they contended, inter alia, that: 1, That the Respondent and Dora Roberts in fact became entitled to the said

| property at 22, Goderich Street, Freetown, by virtue of a Will dated 24”

March 1976 executed by Sarah Thompson Smart, and that as surviving

! children of said Dora Roberts, the Appellants they are entitled to the said property together with the Respondents.

2. That the Deed of Gift could not have been executed by Sarah Thompson Smart as she was very ol4, ill, and bed ridden and incapable of executing the Deed being 86 years old; that the property for so many years had been divided by the Respondent and Dora Roberts; the top flat being that occupied by Dora Roberts and the bottom flat by the Respondent; they denied renting the premises as alleged in the Respondent's claim.

3. By way of Counter-Claim the Appellants contend that after the death of Sarah Thompson Smart, the Respondent went to the property and collected all the deceased's jewellery forming part of the deceased's estate and has not accounted for them.

y |

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