Alhaji F. Sawaneh v Alhaji M. Bayoh (SC CIV APP 6 of 1979) [1980] SLSC 7 (3 July 1980)

dj SC. Civ.app.6/79 4 ] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF STERRA LEONE q sen BETWEEN: E aa ALHAJI FODAY SwWANEH = APPELLANT . i 4 7 AND i ¥ i a AUHAST MURRAY BAYOH = RBSpONDENT ; . a : ~ } ‘The Hon Mr Justice E. Livesey Luke ~ chief Justice: i ~ The Hon Mr Justice C. A. Hardin, = Justice of the te a . Supreme Coust iH oebaH ers loca erscceesiontene Tegan: im. Justice of the Bi |: Suprene Court H lf th 'E5/) the Hon Mrs Justice: as“AwunorRe, Justice of The B “E fe Hon Mrs Justice’ i. ‘AwinorRenner » Justice of mn i “Tt The Hon Mr Justice S. B. Davies = Justice of the H df Supreme Court ty ~ : fi a I Mr Ade Ronner-Thonas for Appellant 4 m- Mr @. 8. ‘Johnson for Respondent (a {| SANG AD supoenn ner iveRED on 3RD DAY oF JULY,1980, A ‘{ge] TBI SS.c.t- By an agreement dated tn day of February a [E1904 the respondent agreed to sell premises dituate and Hi a ‘si tying at 33A Kainkordu Road, Koidu Town in the Kono Hi ae District of the Easter Province of the Republic of Sierra tes : I Leone for the sum of Le8,200,00 to the appellant of No,14 I “ t fF Section 11 Koidu Town in the Kone District in theEastern rs

i the respondent was to remain in possession of the auld He) he Premises for a period of six months without payment of ii ‘i Hey Ji] rent, and that the ata period vas to end on the Het 4, ie wet i E 2maviseee * Hi ] fie

a | -t He id 2 iP J of July, 1974. It was witnessed by several i witnesses who thusb-printed it, ‘the appellant [ ; J then paid the agreed sum.of Le8,200.00 to the j Gage respondents | a rf After the 31st day of July 1974, the respond- ~ i cd ent neither gave up possession nor conveyed the i - "premises to the appellant who then instituted pro- f C43 ceedings against him by. the issue of a Writ of i "ee Summons dated 18th day of April, 1975, claiming a i [ E decree of specific performance of the contract of i a sale, vacant possession of the premises and nesne Hi ty profite from the tet dey of August 1976 to the ante f me pices H uy The respondent admitted in receiving the sum 4 co Of Le8,200.00 but asserted that the sum of Le8,200.00 i] was received by hin by way of a pledge or nortage Hi "i on the house which was a fanily property. The H ma = Respondent, however, agreed to pay into Court the ee L ii full amount of Le8,200.00. Re - ie On the 22nd day of January, 1976, the case i al came before Thompoon-Davies J. fdr trial, and vho I oe: atter bering heard the evidence end arpineste on i - h doth cides, delivered on tho 13th day of July, Ae h : 1977, judgment in the following terns:~ ie * “For all these reasons I find nyself He “i unable to grant the relief sought by the thie ; Plaintiff. The plaintifr io entitled Ike | to have his money, since to my mind el ‘4 exhibit "A" seems spurious and incéaplete. ah ak I I cannot find my way clear to award he Ha | Bmeeees hee iB

ey “dj 3 ae v | any damages. While refusing the ell Plaintiff's request for specific per= j _t formance I would order that the defendant 3 p4 do réfund the eum of 168,200.00 to the i boyy plaintiff and that he pay the costs of ; | this action, Such costs to be taxed." i [ j Tn support of his conclusion, he relied on the Mi 1g Passage in Halsbury Laws of England 3rd Edition | Ck Vol. 36 paragraph 359 at’ page 263 which reads thus:- H . ie "The remedy of specific performance is thus I CE in contrast vith the ready by way of Hi roe damages for breach of contrsct, which iit ee sivee pecuniary ooapensstion for fattwre Hi E to carry out the tems of the contract. lf ~ ‘The remedy is special and extraordinary in i ik its character and the Court has a diss fi : < cretion to grant it, or to leave the be Ck parties to their rights at law. The Ne ae @lscretion is however not an arbitrary fH L B or capricious discretion; it is a dis- it - ie cretion to be exercised on fixed principles iit c f i tn sccontanco with the previous authorities, ff r Pp The Judge must exercise his discretion = Ae ina judicial manner, If the contract ies rg is valid in form and has been made be~ tr ne | two competent parties ant ie unobjection= ff a able in its nature and eircunstances, fis ~ 8 specific performance is in offect granted Hee L a as a matter of course, even though the Hie uP dudge may think it involves hardship." 4 ‘ J Nfnvsvee He

J

J 4 : oa The Trial Judge referred to paragraph 389: | ‘where it 1s sought to entoree specific ! P Perfornance of a contract, the Court must : [4 be satisfied. i rey

(1) That there is a concluded gontrect | ae in tect; C4 (2) that the contract so concluded is not a J tows men tm penesf [: : have failed to agree expressly or by I) ae; + implication on some essential matter, i od or by reason that if fails to comply if - with statutory requirements relating z d to contractas i 7 (3) that the contract 48 precise and : i é certein or in other words, that: i i] although all essential matters may i 7 have been dealth with, there is not He ff such uncertainty and vagueness that i Ss exact performance cannot be ordered." i | In'the course of his judgment, the Learned He 4 Trial Judge sata: Hs f "Now the contract relied on by the Ihe 4 plaintiff is contained in Exhibit "4" He) r which without doubt speaks against the Hee z TMliterates Protection Act Cap. 108 Lave a i of Bierra Leone: that being so it is not Pen - sufficient to transfer any interest in ie e land. Taking 0 eléser ick at the ant i documont it seems to me that it was hee y , never signed by the defendant, thot 16 ie P 4 the party to be charged, or his agent rae 3B ea 1 sells

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