Attorney General & Minister of Justice v Horse Fishing Company Ltd (SC CIV APP 3 of 2018) [2021] SLSC 1 (13 January 2021)

SC CIV. APP. 3/18 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SIERRA LEONE) = BETWEEN:- THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL & - APPELLANT MINISTER OF JUSTICE 3" FLOOR GUMA BUILDING LAMINA SANKOH STREET FREETOWN AND HORSE FISHING COMPANY LTD - RESPONDENT JUI-HASTINGS FREETOWN COUNSEL: OSMAN KANU FOR THE APPELLANT PA MOMO FOFANAH FOR THE RESPONDENT

Coram

HON MR. JUSTICE DESMOND B. EDWARDS CJ HON. MR. JUSTICE NICHOLAS C. BROWNE-MARKE JSC HON. MR. JUSTICE M. F. DEEN TARAWALLY JSC HON. MR. JUSTICE ALUSINE S. SESAY JSC HON. MR. JUSTICE ALHAJI MOHAMED MOMOJAH STEVENS JA.

SC CIV. APP. 3/18 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SIERRA LEONE.

BETWEEN:-

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL & : APPELLANT MINISTER OF JUSTICE

3*° FLOOR GUMA BUILDING.

Lamina Sankoh Street

FREETOWN

AND

HORSE FISHING COMPANY LTD. - RESPONDENT JUL-HASTINGS

FREETOWN

COUNSEL:

OSMAN KANU FOR THE APPELLANT

PA MOMO FOFANAH FOR THE RESPONDENT

HON MR. JUSTICE DESMOND B. EDWARDS CJ

HON. MR. JUSTICE NICHOLAS C. BROWNE-MARKE JSC.

HON. MR. JUSTICE M. F. DEEN TARAWALLY JSC

HON. MR. JUSTICE ALUSINE S. SESAY JSC

HON. MR. JUSTICE ALHAJI MOHAMED MOMOJAH STEVENS JA. JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE DESMOND B. EDWARDS THIS _ 13" DAY OF JANUARY, 2021, APPEAL

1. By Notice of Appeal filed on the 25" of June, 2018 the Appellant herein appealed to this Honourable Court against the Judgement of the Court of Appeal presided by Hon Mr. Justice Reginald S. Fynn JA, Hon. Mr. Justice E. Taylor-

‘Camara JA and Hon. Mr. Justice Sengu M. Koroma JA dated the 20" of April,

.

2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS FOLLOWS: | i, That the Court of Appeal (Fynn JA., Taylor-Camara JA and Sengu . Koroma JA) were wrong in law when they stated that the Lease | Agreement is only voidable and not void ab initio when the provision of . the Law states that when a non-compliant Lease is entered into, the . property which is the subject matter of the Lease automatically vests in the Board by operation of law. Therefore the lease agreement can be . deemed to be void ab initio as the right to property does not pass to the | intended lessee by operation of law. | ii, ‘That the Court of Appeal (Taylor-Camara JA) was wrong in law to have . concluded that the Learned Trial Judge “did not follow that line of | thought through so as to direct the Board to modify the agreement and issue a license which would have made the Lease a compliant reserved | leasehold” and by regard for the fact that the Learned Trial Judge without regard for the fact that the Learned Trial Judge had seen and heard the evidence and therefore had obvious advantages over the Court of Appeal who only had the printed record to go by. iii, That the Court of Appeal (Fynn JA., Taylor-Camara JA and Sengu Koroma JA) were wrong to castigate the Appellant herein by suggesting or concluding that the Appellant Solicitors have failed to advise the Respondent to seek independent legal advice on the status of the law and had undertaken in the Lease Agreement to obtain the necessary licence but failed to do so, when the Appellant Solicitors had no legal obligation to doso. ‘

iv, That the Court of Appeal (Taylor-Camara JA.) was wrong in law to have concluded that the Respondent herein failure to observe the law was due to genuine and excusable ignorance without due regard to the maxim “[gnorantia juris non excusat or ignorantia legis neminem excusat” that is ignorance of the law excuses not and ignorance of law excuses no one.”

y. That the Judgment of the Court of Appeal (Fynn JA. Taylor-Camara JA. ‘And Sengu Koroma JA.) is against the weight of the evidence led in the lower court and contained in the record of the Court.

RESPONDENT’S CASE

3, The Respondent filed and relied on their Statement of Case dated the 12" of

October, 2020. The graven of the Respondent's Case was that i, That they agreed with the Justices of the Court of Appeal, Justice Fynn JA presiding, that the non-compliance of the Respondent to secure a licence pursuant to Section 4(1) of the Non Citizens’ Interest in Land Act No30 1966prior to the Lease Agreement being made out to them, was only voidable and not void ab initio, as a result of Section 5 of the aforesaid Act and the special circumstances of the case, in that the Respondent, was a foreign investor who was unrepresented by a solicitor at the time of granting the lease for 50 year.

ii, That the Court of Appeal had the right to have invoked its own jurisdiction to review the case and evaluate the evidence led in the lower court inorder to arrive at a fair, independent and just decision; and that this was so despite being denied of assessing the witnesses, it being, a judgment that did not go to a full blown trial.

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