Attorney General & Minister of Justice And 2 Others v Chapelet Investment Limited (CIV APP 20 of 2000) [2001] SLCA 22 (10 December 2001)

gh: 3. t' ov.seP.20/2000 fy ; “DH fms coUR! OF APPEAL FoR Sram Laces a Beever: ALOUTY-OMEUL a koi : © oF sustcs - arene TESmY OF BEParz TOMISIRY oF PrUoR aD : Rum? DESHI LT estoy Cosas EonstirJustice 3.C+ Thonpsonevis - Jo0 HonsirJustice Ke2+ Tolle ihompson - Jie . Tonstirs.Justioe Patricia Macaulay - J+ S.BeBerewa Bsq.,Attomey Generel and Winioter of Justice for Appellants. G. Banda ‘honas Esq, for Respondent ite Tupasare verve on me [()" pay op De 4%! 2004 ‘IMONPSON-DAVIS JS¢:~ Sonetine in 1989 tho appellant envezu’ into an agreenent with tho Government of Sierza Loone whereby the sesponden? . were to supply a ict of military hardware including uslicoptor gun ship engines and spares; the usw] "Bnd Users Certificate" in f.voun of the Respondents was approved and signed by HB. she Frosidun’ of the Republic of Sierra Leones It 48 comon grou between the parties ant accoptad by the Court that a certain musber of goods vas supplied ad «1 Lane suownl in U-S.Bollars was paids It is also coation Ground betiyoon chon thu not all the goods onlered under the agreoment have arrived in thie bd countrys ‘fhe Respondents are saying that the sua of £377,4{0 4 still to be paid dy the Appollantes, “oy asith resusl to a clin in foveign currency T would say thst 4% de not witb for our ca wet give judgnent for an anownt-in foveign eurreneys a debt 1 4 forcign currency must be converted in Leones with ve bot rate of exchange provailing on she dy wien tie dit jus

‘e,

3. O&

ew In these cirewstances the plaintift/responiunte by writ daud Decenber 16, 1999 commenced tho present actions tho rospondcnte claiming the debt and the defendant/appoliunte alleging thal they . had paid them in full anf that the plaintiffs/respondencs had acknowledged in writing receipt of tho sa4d paynont, und alloged in a counterclaim that the goods supplied wore not in accordance with the contract and not at the time agrecd ons the Learned juye foun! vic plaintift/respondente’ evidence satisfactory and roliuble and proved and gave judgnent for then. Being dissatisfied with the decision the appollants have come hore fér a redress. Before going further one must try to be procice abou! the oxtu.: of the obligation to which the parties bad been cubjected. ‘The contmet was made on the 20th of Septenbor 1908 - See Sxhe, on October 29, 1990 notification of the decision of the Sierra Leone Government to import into its country some military equipment and relied materials was sent to the Security Council Comittee U.r'+ Mow York, © Yovenber 2, 1968, this body wrote back to the Femanen? iisgion of Sierra Leone to the Uslle to say that it had taken note of such notit'is.+ione ‘The contract was for the sale of specific and ascertained pods, there was nothing in it terns as to the time the property in thew ws. to transfer to the buyers. However from the conduct oF the partics and the circumstances of the case time was an important factor in i. implenentation even though it was not of the essence of the contmcle 7 In the absence of any definite intention on the part of the partios as to tho time at which the property in the goods was to puss so the Buyers one must have recourse to the wale of Goals Act,Gape225 Law ¢ of Siorma Lome ~ 85+ 19 & 20 and te 1 to those Mites

oS rei S19 (1) zeades : Miere there is a oontmact for the sale of specific or ascortained goods, the property in them sa traneferrod # to the iuyer at such tine as the parties to the cantract a wanfod to be tronsferzed!'s :

(2) "Wor the purpose of ascertaining tho intention of the : pasties regaid shall be had to the tem of the omtroct j ‘tHe contuct of’ the parties and the cizeustances of r the caso! 8.20 reads: "Unless a different intention appears the following are } mules for ascertaining the intention of the partics at E to the tine at which the property in the goals is to y pase to the buyer". E RULE 1 reads: re ‘ritieze torms 4s an unconditional contract for the sale : & spocitis goods, in a deliverable state, tho property ih the fool acts to the buyer when the contract is a nado, and if 1s immtorial whether the tine and payment

i or the time of delivering, or both be postponed".

: Tho “goods passed to appellants on 28th Septenber 1998 when the contract was nade, it follovs then that on September 28 1998, the Covernmont of Sierra Leone was in complete possession of all the yoods landed at tho

; fixed point. of entry into Sierra Leone, Iamgi International Airport wid z ‘the property in them transferred to the Government.

i i ‘Me quoition now axiees whether this partiouter Mule wich T have

a read applica, that ie vhether the property had pussods ‘there is no

i suggestion by any of the partios that any timo had bocn fixed for th

7 Purpose Failing that, and it is a question of law and fact, the time for the proporty to pase to the buyer io when the contme miles

r. I do not think 4t is desirable to quote at length the grounds of i eppeal by the Appellants tut I intend to deal with them under various headings 7 a Exhibits A&B incluling the Report of a Doart of “mausay ie * Tt was \gubmitted by leamed counsel for the appellants vio had said everything possible on behalf of his client that those two documenta were wrongfully admitted by the trial judge on the cround of coneraveni ne the hearsay mules Ho Gaié thoir admiasion me a Macrsnt extension 6: a - ay ih a ee jprtmtssion 48 sound the other complaints and i “Y cialenites ¥o'the validity’ of the judgnant do not need to be considercts F i Logically it merits the position of being considered first.

The contention for the wrongness and invalidity of this submission is largely countea ty Learned counsel for the respondents ty the angment that both doounents wore made by partion to the action and that they ore informal admissions by the parties.

i Sh ti of ta ater seta the waa ce Ht ane

bs documents (Bhs A & B) both were documents made by the 3rd and 2nd respondents respectively parties to the action, A&B were primary ‘eritence aga’ ‘thet pridonce visch’ are xoceivatte to prove the

4 contents of the docunente aven without notice to producet Vide Slatterio vs

. Boolyy Brohango, 1640.

F I shall now reproduce these two documents as tendered before the

learned judges

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