Alhassan P. Kargbo & Another v Brima Jalloh (MISC APP 41 of 2011) [2012] SLSC 19 (5 January 2012)

sc civ Are NO.3/2010 NOTICE OF APPEAL BETWEEN: ALUASSAN PAUL KARGBO - AN INTERESTED AND PARTY/APPELLANT sSANNOH VICTOR MUSTAPHA - APPELLANT "AND BRIMA JALLOH _ RESPONDENT

Coram

HON. JUSTICE P.O. HAMILTON - JSC HON. J USTICE V.A-D. WRIGHT - JSC HON. JUSTICE M.E.T. THOMPSON - JSC HON. JUSTICE A. SHOWERS - JA HON. V.M. SOLOMON 7 JA AF. Serry-Kamal Esq. and E.E.C. Shears-Moses Esq. for Appellant/Applicant | D.G. Thompson Esq- for Respondent Ruling Delivered on ne 3D bey of su ly , 2012 This is an application 0” behalf of the Applicant in which Counsel for the Applicant A.F. Serry-Kamal Esq. seeks leave to proceed with the Notice of

| — on

Motion dated 12" February, 2012 and another dated 9” January, 2012. i Counsel for the Applicant also seeks leave to amend the words “An ‘ nterested Party” to read “Appellant” anywhere it does appear in the papers filed.

Counsel for the Applicant stated that this was an Appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal refusing leave to add the “Appellant” herein as 2 iq party to the action. He further stated that there is one Notice of Motion dated 11" November, 2011 which is the one for which leave is being sought to ¥ amend. D.G. Thompson Esq. Counsel for the Respondent in opposing this application for leave to amend based his opposition on three grounds:

(1) That this matter was heard and determined by a panel of three (3) . Justice with a ruling dated 6" October, 2011. The Applicant requested | a panel of. five

(5) Justices which is a full panel of the Court. He > submitted that the same matter which was heard by the panel of three Justices should be the same that should be heard by the panel of five * Justices. Therefore if this application is granted new issues will be brought into play which will change the nature of the matter heard ; . before the panel of three Justices. H

(2)If the application is granted Alhassan Paul Kargbo will become a | party automatically when he was not a parly in the High Court not i even in the Court of: ‘Appeal. |

So " 1 is clear that i (3 is : _ at the Court of Appeal has not given a ruling as such an agg? — party is unknown. Finally reliance is place on the affidavit | in opposition filed by the respondent. t AF. Serry-Kamal Esq. in reply submitted that this is only an application for jeave to amend the title of the proceedings. He further submitted that there 4 should be a distinction between the main case refusing the applicant's | application to be joined as a party and finally submitted that Rule 6(/) of the Supreme Court Rules 1982 gives an aggrieved party the right to come to the Supreme Court. Rule 6(1) of the Supreme Court Rules 1982 provides: “4n appeal shall lie from a judgment, decree or order of the Court of q Appeal to the Supreme Court ... ++ ” Considering this application it must be made clear that the Applicant requested a full panel of five

(5) Justices to hear this matter although it had ' been heard and determined by three

(3) Justices. I do agree with Counsel for the Respondent that the application if granted would automatically make x Alhassan Paul Kargbo an Appellant when he was not a party in the High Court nor in the Court of Appeal. In my humble opinion if this application for leave to amend is granted it would change the nature of the matter that was heard by the panel of three | Justices before this full panel of five Justices.

SI Jn the final result therefore the leave sought by Counsel for the Applicant AF. Serry-Kamal Esq. is refused. I make no order as to cost. HON. JUSTICE P.O. HAMILTON - JSC I en eee HON. JUSTICE V.A.D. WRIGHT - JSC ——s HON. JUSTICE M.E. TOLLA THOMAPSON- JSC panes HON. JUSTICE A. SHOWERS - JA HON. JUSTICE VM. SOLOMON - Ja&

+ POW/HI