Alfred James Shorunkeh-Sawyerr & Another v J. S. Bissett (10 of 1924) [1924] SLCA 10 (23 December 1924)

23rd D~cem­ ber, 1924. 1M ALFRED JA~[ES SHORGXKEII­ SA "'\VYERR and Another '!). J. S. BISSETT - - Appellants. - Respondent .1 Power to grant leave of appeal to Privy Council in absence of eridence of 'l'alue of matter in diszmle-Rule 2a of Order of the King in Council of 15-th Februa1·y, 1909. The facts of this case a.re sufficiently set out in the judgment. Application for leave to appeal to IIis Majesty in Council from a judgment of the Full Court of Appeal. A. J. Shorunkeh-Sawyerr and J. C. Shoru11keh-Sawyerr, the Appellants, in person. J\.empson for tl1c Respond rnt. PRIOR, Acting J. This is an application under rule 2 (a) of the Order-in­ Counc:il of Februar~·, 1909,2 and the question as to whether it should 'be granted depends on whether this Court is satisfied, that the matter in dispute is of the value of £300. Mr. Sawyerr lays stress on his own statement on page 12. of the evidence in the Supreme Court, " My rough estimate of the value of the land is £300." It must, however, be remembered that this is the >alue of the whole four acres, which he states to be his, and that the alleged trespass is upon only. a portion of the land. Again, in his affidavit, he cites Mr. Abayomi Cole as having sold land near that in dispute at a date unnamed, at the rate of £60 an acre. Objection is taken to Mr. Kempson's affidavit, whieh says that the land does not exceed £75 in value, on the ground that it is not confined to facts which the witness is able of his own knowledge to prove, and it is inadmissible, since this is not an interlocutory proceeding. 1 Seep. 122. t Vol. ID, p. 767. s1 155 An interlocutory proceeding is one which does not finally SHotw:<KE" 1· ;-;AWYElUt determine the rights of the parties . Rule 28 of the Appea l A~JJ ANOTJ.r::R Onler- in-Oouncil,l which enables Appellants to go direct to the • v. - R ISSE'IT . Privy Council, may be urged in favour of the view that thif' Pl:'on, petition is interlocutory in that it does not finally determine the AOTixo J . rights of the parties . However, it is unnecessary to decide that point, since th<> evidence and the affidavit of the Appeilant, so far from showing· that his claim is £;)00 in value, goes to ind icate that the alleged War Office encroachment, which is the subject matter of this action, is of substantially less value than that sum . Mention has been made of the foundations of a house alleged to be upon the land, and descrihed in ~fr. Sawyerr's affidavit in reply "as a >aluable basement of a stone building ." Noth ing ;,. l'lnid as to tl1e vnlue of this and, since the only erection shown on the plan is descr!bed as "Ruin," the Court cannot assume that it is of :mch a value as would bring the subject matter of the action up lo the value of £300 . For these 1·easons the applicat ion must be dismissed with costs . Mr. Sawyerr asked that this Court should record the fact that he applied to ihe Court for "special leave" to appeal. .. When making tha.t request, however, Mr. Sawyerr intimated that he was aware that the application was one which this Court coulJ not grant. I n this connection it should also be stated that, so far as regards rule 2 of the Order-in-Council of February, 1909, 2 Mr. Sawyerr made it clear that he based his app lication :for leave to appeal on paragraph (a) of that rule, and that he did not wish to base it on paragraph (b). ~fcDONNE LIJ , Acting C .. T. I agree. L EVY, Acting J . I agree. 1 Vol. III, p. 771. 2 Vol. III, :p. 767.