Alie Abess v Sierra Leone Road Transport Authority (CIV APP 53 of 2016) [2022] SLCA 14 (16 January 2022)

. Cl. APP 53/2016 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SIERRA LEONE BETWEEN: + ALIE ABESS Appellant (Trading as Alie Abess Trading and General Enterprises) AND SIERRA LEONE ROAD TRANS®ORT AUTHORITY Res, ondent (Now known as Sierra Leone Road Safety Authority)

Coram

Hon. Mr Justice Re S Fynn, JA Hon, Mr Justice #1 M Sesay, JA Hon, Mr Justice E Taylor-Camara,JA Representation: CF Margoi Esq, for the Appellant E Kergbo Esq or the Responden’ JUDGMENT OF "IR JUSTICE £ TAYLOR-CAMARA JA, DELIVERED THE 18™ DAY 1 JANUARY 2022

1. The facts ofthis case as found by ihe trial judge, are as fellows: The AppetlantiPleintif fe * commercial renapert operat. The Responden¥Detean is satiny by Airco ‘ith regulating the registration and contro of vehicular traffic on the roads of iorra Leone. thas powers to stop and detain vehicles where relevant road traffic offences have been, ‘or are reasonably belioved to have been committed. On 22 July 2011, a Mercedes Benz 1416 D commercial bus ‘earing registration mark AEQ 638 belongin. to the Plaintif was ‘stopped and detained by traffic wardens working for the Defendant. The traffic wardens ‘oticed that it displayed two road licence certificates instead of one. They therefore decided to detain the vehicle with a view to making further inquiries. *

2. Upon inquiy it was discovered that the particulars on record for the detained bis cant tally withthe registration mark on the number plate bome by the bus. Thi detaired bus was a Mercedes Benz 1416 D commerciai bus an bore the number plate with roqstato

= ‘mark AEQ 638, but the particulars on record for that number plate, calied fcr ta vehicle E to be a Mercedes Benz 508 mecel bus. The Defendant’ officers therefore concluded ‘hat the detained bus was carrying the wraniy number plate. x

3. The officers also made inquiries into the two road license cerificates found on the windscreen of the detained bus and discovered that the licenses related to two separate Mercedes Benz buses, both belonging to the Plaintif.. One related to 2 Mercedes Benz ‘model 508 bus with registration mark AEQ 638, and the other a Mercedes Genz model 1416 D ts with registration mark ADN 378, The I..ense in respect of tho lalter had expired and the vehicle to which it related! (the detained MB 1614D bus) us therefore Unticensed and ought not te be on the road. The Plaintii’ accepted that the arrested bus | bere the wrong nue plate, He ead that his employees had cironecualy encoped tho ‘umber plates of the vehicles so *vat the dotained 1614 D bus now bore the ny iumor Plate. !twas also discovered that there were severai oulstandlig unpaid fios rating to the buses.

4. Due to the perceived gravity of the offence, tite Defendant's officers decided no! to issue a penalty ticket, but decided instea' to refer the matter tothe police, witi view" further investigation and possible prosecut in. In the meantima, “se arrested vehicle 1 mained s detained at the Defendant's depot

5. The Plaintiff subsequently wrote tothe Defendant requesting the roloase aril return: cftho detainod vehicle. . The Defendant retused to reledse tv vehicle vnlts investigations Were complete andior until the Plaintiff tock the necessary steps to ensure that the detained vehicle became lawfully compliant. The Plaintif failed to take any such steps.

6. The Plaintiff then instituted proceedings against the Defendant for the release of the vehicle and claimed damages against the Defendant for loss of earnings, The Oe“endant filed a Defence to the effect that the arrest and detention of the vehicle was not unlawful in that the detention was made pursuant to statutory powers of arrest and detention when, ‘ as in this case, an offence has occurred, P 2

.

7. The matter was heard by the Hon Justice V wl Solomon, JA (as sie then was), wo on 10 tune 2016, held in favour ofthe Defendant and dismissed the Piaintit’s claim. kts against this decision that the Appotiant appeals.

[« Grounds and Particulars of Appeal

Ground 4

8. The Appellant is claiming that the Judge wrongly evaluated the evidence and theréby arrived at a wrong conclusion, to wit, that it was vehicle with registration mark ADN 278 that was urrested and detained and not vehicie AEQ 638, The Appellant argues that his claim isin detinue forthe return of his vehicle with registration mark AEQ 638, He afques that the Judge's finding that it was vehicle with registration mark ADN 378 tat vse arrested arid detained and not vehicle AEG 638, was vitor. Tie Appeliintictée:nevire! ‘extracts from: the Judgement and eviderice in support of nis claim,

9. 82 of the Road Transport Act, 2007 provides that every vehicle must be rgistered Registration involves recording the particutsrs of the vehicle. The particlars to be ‘recorded include the make, mede! numbei as weil as the engine and chassis numbers of the vehicle. $4 of the Road Transport Act, 2007 provid's tnat every vehicle rs bo assigned a registration mark

10. The Judge was clear that the vehicle arrestod and detained was the MB1614 U bus wih

‘wrongly bore registration mark AGQ 63°. That vehicle should in fact have besa? registration mark ADN 378. iis “Ire clrar thet th. patticuigre ch recor fa ie "veh is? 8 ‘= with registration mark AEQ 630 wore at variance with the physical attitules of the

detained vehicle. Indeed the evidence is that the particulars on record forthe rogistration mark AEQ 638 belonged to a differant bur an MB 508 bus, also owned Sy the AppeliantPlaintif. The ¢ idence of DW1 was clear on the issue

“When we checked we found thal AEQ 638 was for a Mercedes Benz 508 bus ar:cinot

for Mercedes Bonz 1614 1) bus.

° “The vehicle arrestsd was a Mercedes Benz 1614 D bus. "(at hos 11-13, page 7)

2 11. the physical tributes c: the detained vehicle did however correspond with ino parveutars €n record for the vehicle with registration mark ADN 378, The Appeliant (PW), in his ‘evidence contemed this. He sai: . “The day itwas arrostedit hand (sc) number AEQ 368 (se). At ia tne that wos not ‘he comrect number. It id not tally with chassis number. The actual cumber should hhave been AND (sic) 378."(at ines 12-14, page 71) 12, The Judge summed up the relevant evidence as follows: H “The vehicle with registration AEQE3B is a Mercedes Bone 508 ous ivith ongino ‘number: 31495910482185 Chassis No: WDB 3004251070849 ~ Sco exit “Aé" But ‘ho vehicle which wos errestod and parked at the compen’ c! tho Patendant ie «Mercedes Bonz 1614 D van with Engine Number: 3649501017772 ox! Caase's ‘number WD866936319163677 and cared registra number Az 632 ~ 13, The Judge therefore concluded, correctly in my view, that the particulars for vehicle with ‘2gistration mark AEQ 638 aid not tly with the engine and chassis number et the vohile arrested. n the crcumstances, | do not see how it can properly be said ttt Juge wrongly evaluated this evidense a. caimed by the Appellant

14. In sitar vein, the Appelan claims (i his Argument (), thatthe Jue wn wong to conciude that it was noi vehicle AEQ 638 that was arested and detained, but shiclo with registration mark ADN,378. The Aopellan! refers tothe evidence of LW ta th -etiec that ~ the appreherdied vehicie cari the repistation plate AEW

630. Ruieeiisé also made 10 the Defence, which also acknowledges that it was the vehicle bearing number plato ‘AEQ 638 that was arrested. Bu the vehicle bearing plate AEQ 636 was not the vehicle that i should have beer The vehicle bearing plate AEQ 638 shuld have been a Mer sdes-Benz 508 bus. The vehicle actualy arested and detained was a Mercedes Benz MB 1614 D bus which should have hada different registration mark. should have been ADN 378, (see the evidence of PW 1 at page 71),

15. All the evidence is that an MB 1614 D bus was arrested. it bore number plate with . ‘istration mark AEQ 638 but should have been ADN 378, The vehide shyscaly Getained was the vehicle thot should have bome number pate ADN 272. the woice thar should have bome registration mark AEQ 638 (the MB 508 bus) was not arrested! detained. The ResponsentiDefendant did detain a wehicke beating mumber plate nt

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