Augusta Kaimuna v Jlah B. Grant And Another (SC CIV 17 of 2001) [2002] SLSC 4 (4 December 2002)

| a = tw eet IN_THE SUPREME COURT cr _srexma_L2oNE \ gam BON. MR. JUSTICE S. BECCLES DAVIES - ssc HON. MRS. A. AWUNOR-REOIER - a8 HOM. MR. JUSTICE 8.C.E.WAREE - ssc HON. MR. JUSTICE M,

0. ADOPEY ‘ a BON. MR. JUSTICE A.B. TIMBO “ma. pBTWEEN?~ AUGUSTA KAIHUNA = APPELLANT AND JLAH BRODES GRANT - 1st AND MR. ADAMA : = 2iD RESPONDENT DR. W.S. MABCUS-JONES FOR APPELLANT =. G. S. WILLIAMS ESQ., FOR DEFENDANTS ~ JUDGMENT DELIVERED THIS Cm DAY_ OF f ere. Li 2002 This ie an Appeal against the Judgaent of the Court of Appeal, made up St HAVO, TURAY AND WILLIAMS JJA~ delivered om Thuraday 22nq day of January, 1987. ‘THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARES. 0 % Ss

1. The court of Appeal misdirected itself in law ty failing to appreciate the “Order to recover possession of 13, Nana Kroo Street Freetown meant and could caly.be reasonably interpreted to mean so much of 13 Nand Kroa strect ms vee in the actual Possession er occupation of the Second Defendant, = tenant in the said premises and by construing that Order to mean recovering “more relief" than vas claimed. 2+ The court of Appeal erred in Law in not making an Order disaissing the Counterclaim. . ZActs: the facts of the case are that oppellant 18 the over ©f and ‘im possession and control of property No, 13 Nana Kroo street. This property she let to three tenants. These tenants | Paid rent to her until one of the tenant,defanlted vhow she *victed. This tenant Loe Janes Levis vacated the room and put im possession the 1st Respondent. ‘The ist Respondent vacated the room and put im possession, the 2nd Respondent. The Appellant Sought to remove the znd Respondent but the Tet Respondent eDeee/Zocereree

r opposed her action, in the High Court for a eee then sued On the 14th October 1982, the High eect — in favour of appetiant sranting ber the ee et In the proceedings in the High court, ¢ mlete song, testified for Appellant and five wi: bess unten tnesses testifies for the Defendants, At the end of the testisony both Counsel addressed the court, Johnson J, reviewed the evidence for the Appellant and for the Respondests ‘and had this to say. wr sccepted the whole evidence of the Plaintiff and her vitnesses. do not believe or accept the evidence of the 1st Defendant and that of the witnesses for the Defendant. 1 find as a fact, that Abigail Samson “ae in Possession of premises 15, Nana Kroo Street and that she validly disposed of the premises to the Plaintiff, in accordance with Kroo Customary Law. In this regard, I accept the evidence of P.W.

4. I do not find P.W. 4 to be an interested party. I find that Abigail Samson has a detter right to possession of Premises 13, Nana Kroo Street. I do not accept the evidence that the 1st Defendanth father vas the owner of the premises. I find that the Plaintirr in all the circumstances, has a better right to possession of the premises than the 1st Defendant herein.” It is an established principle of law that an Appellate court vill not readily disturb the findings of facts of the trial court, but “here the facts de not support the findings of the Trial Court or the findings have violently contravened a principle of lav, or the findings are contrary to the facts or the facts have not been evaluated, the Appellate Court can interfere with such findings of facts, In my view, the Trial Judge did not evaluate the facts adequately mate To compound the flaw in the findings the re making his findings. to enable him make any Trial Judge did not consider the Counterclaim to findings whatsoever. the said In any case the Court of Appeal has # right of rehearing cag : © which they did. Jiant he gave several reasons viy the Iairnees to Counsel for APPS! ‘Peal should succeed. I will repeat thems t having no beneficial "G) Because the second Respondent wae & cats in defence of the interest in the premises and led no claim against his. in finding that the Appellant (2) pecause the High court was right a Bene

aan S ett pig 7, sF TAGRE to posseseton of tue Jat Respondent. Premises than the Q) Because the Appellaat vag Rot ner, ly over with Kroo Customary Law but vas aracin Peprtene andisturbed saterial tiaee ta Posseanion of the prestses, B (4) jecouse the tet Respondent failed to estedlion ; @ Declaration of tithe, ee + damages and an injunction. | () Because at no tine vas the Property vested — nor wan she ever in possesai niente on of the anne.

(6) Because om the totality of the evidence the Judguent of the High Court was correct and ought to be upheld and the Court of Appeal was one sided in reversing it.”

Having said this, T will consider the proceedings in the Court of Appee

Both parties were represented im the Court of Appeal and made their subaissions.

The Court of Appeal having heard the subsissions had this te say: “her claim was for recovery of possession of only a portion of the said premises, yet the Court Belew ordered that the Respondent “do recover possession of 3, Nana Krg0 Street, Freetown from the Second Defendant".

This Court found to be Contrary te Lav. On a closer examination of th evidence and on a proper evaluation the court found that the property bow

aol Appellant was claiming was clearly defined and there vas no doc 72 substantiate her claim. Om the evidence before the court, there is evi: that the Respondent acquired the property, by Kroo Custosary Law. The ca Judge accepted the evidence on Kroo Customary Law as evidence — e the Court of Appeal has referred to Kroo Customary Law ae = qu a us Lave of Sierra Leone and determined The Court of Appeal referred Cap. 127 tion Area as defined that the property in dispute is within the ene treet by the fs tai da leet acquisition of 13 Kana Kroo Stree! Pe

127. In detesning mqhe effect of the Kroo Reservatio ‘vpellant, The court of Appeal found that ° . and Custoas prevail over the General ‘hapter 127) 1s not to make Kroo Lavs we eucessston oa Intestary spelt out _ Lav except in the specified © Act to be found at Page 2 : Rule 2 schedule B of Kroo Reservation 1 agree with the finding of the ‘lume vit of the Lave of Sierra Leone iso found that the disposal of the “ourt of Appeal. The Court of ae ail Sampson is not valid according te PFerty xo, 13 nana Kroo street by bis she had neither prescriptive right (+ I tind no fault with such finding ight tog al or equitable rié! ‘1epose of the property nor 106! rn

‘ny » & It 4s unfortunate that this case has 4 on tor SOO she Learned Trial Judge did not make any 1 oF ores gave, tots ‘nding on the counterclaim sot—, did the Court of Appeal make a finding as vel). hai tt. Tn "en ts the option open to this Court?. my view it is to remit the Counterclaim to the High court for rehearing. However, what Purpose vill that serve. It is the duty of the Court to ensure that Justice is done to litigute vto come to our Courts. Since this Court can nake any order vested in the High court, I vill proceed to review the case for the Respondents more perticalarly that | of the Tet Respondent. I have revieved the vhole evidence carefully and ] Thold that on a balance of probality the tet Respontent hes failed te establish that she is the owner of property No. 13 Nana Kroo Street, Freetoy | T vill dismiss the counterclaim and I grant Liberty to apply. In view of what I have said supra I hold that there is no merit in Ground I of the Grounds of Appeal and it ie disaissed and Ground II of the Grounds of Appeal succeeds. | Ho costs avarded.

sxe vino SUSTIGE OF THE SUPREME COURT