Aiah Momoh v Sahr S. Nyandemor (SC CIV APP 6 of 2006) [2009] SLSC 10 (2 July 2009)

S.C. CIV. APP, (S55 NO.6/2006 IN THE sup SUPERS COURT OF SIERRA LEONE ORY JURISDICTION BETWEEN: AIAH M lal + APPELLANT/APPLICANT AND SAHR SAMUEL NYANDEMOH - RESPONDENT

Coram

HON. MRS. JUSTICE S. BASH-TAQI- JSC HON. MRS. JUSTICE V.A.D. WRIGHT - JSC HON. MR. JUSTICE G.B. SEMEGA-JANNEH — JSC COUNSEL: SAHID M. SESAY ESQ. FOR APPLICANT N.D. TEJAN-COLE ESQ. FOR RESPONDENT RULING DELIVERED ON THE 2” DAY OF JULY 2009 S EMEGA-JANNEH -J.S.C. On the 9” of June 2008, this Court delivered its judgment in this suit. In the majority judgment, the Hon. Justice Rhodes-Vivour JSC made the following orders: (a) The Judgment of the High Court (A. N. Stronge JA) given on the 9" February 2001 is hereby set aside.

(0) The Judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on the 11” July 2006 is hereby set aside. (c) All the monies in Account No.20322189 of the Sierra Leone Commercial imited shall remain in tire said Account pending the final decision of Bank Limite ne ownership of No.37 Malama Thomas Street, Freetown, in the Courts on the owr lic of Sierra Leone. | the Westen Area of the Republic of St

a {Se i d) Trial shall proceed (a) Tat sno afresh by Writ of Summons and statement of cl parties decide to resolve the issue of ownership of ; bin fe | rs) Street, Freetown, in the Western Ar ee Nee Meena Tomes ‘ea of the Republic of Sierra Leone. (e) Each party shall bear its own costs. inority judgment deli The min we gment delivered by myself concluded by setting aside “the judgment of i i Yn the tial Judge given on the 9" day of July 2001, and that of the Court of Appeal deivered on the 11" day of July 2006, without prejudice to the sale of the premises, No.37 Malama Thomas Street, Freetown, which was executed pursuant to orders of Court, with liberty to either Mr. Nyandemoh or Mr. Momoh, to issue a writ the proceeds of sale to remain in the custody of the Court, and in the savings account numbered 2032189 at the Sierra Leone Commercial Bank Limited in which the proceeds of sale have been deposited pursuant to the orders of Court to await further orders of the Courts”. Itis against this background that the Applicant on the 7” October 2008 filed a motion on notice of the same date, praying for the following orders:

4. An order that the conveyance of the sale of No.37 Malama Thomas Street, Freetown be set aside on the ground that the order for sale was null and void.

2. That the purported purchaser of the said property do give up possession of the said property forth’ with to the Applicant not later than the 14" days of this

Order

3. That the purported purchaser do give en account of all rents and outgoings in respect of the said proceeds.

mount held at Sierra Leone

4, leducted from the an :

. That the net sum ibe a sa stevens Freatown, and the same to be paid Commercial Bank Limited sa etaKing 20 the same or part of to the applicant herein on his written the same as ordered by the Court

ne said account should be re-paid to the the said a0

5. The balance of the amount lft” | alleged purchaser. 7

(St

6. That the costs of and incidental to this be borne by the Respondent. 7, That all sums of money paid to the Respondent or his solicitor out of the above account be repaid forthwith.

8. Such further or other order as this Honourable Court shall deem fit. on Monday, the 2" day of March 2008, Mr. Sahid M. Sesay, on behalf of the Applicant, moved the motion. When the matter came up for further hearing on the Friday, the 13” March 2008, Mr. ND. Tejan-Cole, of counsel, raised what appears to me a preliminary objection to the hearing of the application on the ground that the Court cannot review or vary its judgment delivered by the full bench of five. In support of the ground of the objection, Mr. ND. Tejan-Cole argued that the Court derives its authority and powers under the Constitution, 1991, of Sierra Leone, under the following sections:

(1) Section 122 - which gives the Court power to hear appeals from the Court of Appeal;

(2) Section 124 - which gives the Court original jurisdiction in matters relating to enforcement and interpretation of any provision of the Constitution 1991, and references made to it on constitutional issues of interpretation arising in the lower Courts;

(3) Section - 125 which gives the Court supervisory jurisdiction or power cover all other Courts and adjudicating authority. re also reflected in MND, Tejan-Cole further argued that some of the Courts power al the Supreme Court Rules 1981 in which: of Appeal to the Court;

1. Rule 6 — deals wilh appeals from the Court

a ——

2. Rule 88 ~ doats wih yp, (58 1 Si Courts in specitio situa, oeY Pets Of the Court over the lower tuations; ang

3. Rule 89 ~ deay IS with th ; Court may be inven "@ manner in which the original jurisdiction of the Mr. N.D. Tejan-Cole, in conclusion, . |. Submitted tha cout’s judgment must be an exprocecs 4 that the power to review or vary the isthe Consthullon 468% Provision; and that there is no such expression + and the Supreme Court Rules, 1984 Despite “ powertul argument, it seems to me that Mr. N.D. Tejan-Cole was not pressing his objection as he proceeded to argue against the substance of the application even before Mr. Sahid M. Sesay could move his application. Suffice it for me to say that the application, in effect, revolves around the interpretation of the orders (judgment) of the Court. In my judgment there is an incomprehensible misunderstanding of the orders of the Court resulting in the application. The orders of the Court are stated in logical and chronological sequence. The orders are to be read in its entirety and as a whole; one order is not divorced from the other. The orders contained in of the majority judgment are, in substance, the same as that the minority judgment, agreed to by both counsel and of which orders (a) (b) and (d) of the majority judgment are encapsulated in one sentence oh the minority judgment thus, bringing out clearly the meaning of the Orders of the Court. Both judgments concluded that the proceeds of sale remain with the Court Until ownership is determined/or await further orders of the Courts. The Judgment leaves i i ituation. The Court in its Orders merely set itto either party to issue a writ to resolve the sit ‘ithout any attendant consequence) and aside the judgments of the lower Courts (w oa — .g Street, Freetown, to be determined in a allows for ownership of No.37 Malama Thoma : ° rty while the proceeds of sale of the said No.37 os * i al fresh suit at the instance of either P i nig remains in the custody of the Court to foresi Malama Thomas Street, Freetown, 2! sensor tthe re of Court. avait the determination of the anticipated su ders prayed for in the ion to grant the or In an it is not in the position 10 9 y event the Cou Srcumstances of the application. ed with costs against the Applicant. ismiss* I . ation is hereby dism! “the premises the application $ 4

a (54 LF Yloooet- HON. MR. vi (CE G.B, SEMEGA-JANNEH - JSC sen 5 Ing 1 AGREE: en EEA HON. MRS. JUSTICE S. BASH-T, 4QI- JSC win

HON. MRS. JUSTICE V.A.D. WRIGHT - JSC .

be 7 “SIHS

————<“‘i—:*:C~*™