Ayo Wilson v James Samura & Another (CIV APP 3 of 1974) [1975] SLSC 8 (3 June 1975)

de leer mrzag ‘sougr oz gzenma_taowe"+ coxa 6.9.4. Cone, chict Justice (Presic 9.6.4. osrrs, Justice of the’Suprome ¢

8. LEVUS2Y LUSB, Justice of the Supreme ¢ Sud. Foaszeie, Justice of the Supreme ¢ S. BBECLES-aWwezs, Juutice of Appeal civi2 Append Wo. 3/74 AY@ vMISCN | APPELLANT ‘ Galigs ren ) PA KOuGNt =). RespoWDENTS suyeuene ‘3RD, JUNE, 197

8. Hudson arcing fos the appalant ; bG. Okeke Fox “he itespontents ot Gols. G23. + For well ower titrty-nine years Mr. Lu Genot var the veo simple ovacr of a certain’ piece off Jond which he dispoved of to the appellant by dead OF conveyance ste tho 17th day of August, 1961. ‘mat || sulle ee el wt] acca vas put saga AUnIOLE "A" in tho trial Cour otf e pur ang in tho trial coure, nonoly, the Hig Court. Ia dt the pleco of land in question vas said to Se at Kington in Freetown af Ham Stroct, off tionnocsy Strest. Both in the High court 4 and in the Court of Appeal cs woll as in ‘this Court t) appears to be no depute butwoon ali concerned regard: tho Adontity of tine piece of land, 1 shall thereféii hereafter reve to #t a8 “the sald lana", “N Tho respondedis had been on the sada land for a nunbor ef yoars = tho First rospondent since sometime PORATED REE BES]

“in 1955 and the second Ectporsent since sometime in 1956. then they went on the said land Mr, Lucien ' Gonci sms tii tho omer in foo simple, The dispute rogariing the said land relates to the question whether the reapendents vers erely monthly tenants of the said Land up to and aftor the 17th August, 1961 (the dato of tie disposition to the appellant) or whether tne respondents bad acquired such interest in the said land as to raise the equitable doctrine of proprictary estoppel binding on tho appellant, As regards the latt quoation Lt Le but proper to mention that a& no time wa bie, Laden Gonet ever sought to bo made a party to me | notion.

‘mo appaliant isoued her weit of summons on the 18 | diy or Saptenbev, i970" ciaindhig' af asearationsthat| che || is ontiticd in foe simple in possession of the atid — |/ snd; possession of tho said Land and mense profits fro

| November, 1965 until possession is given up. In her | « Statonont of Claim, after alleging that she was the foe ssnpi. oor absolute iA possession of the said land - | tt having buen conveyed to hor by fir. Lucien Genet her proaswessor dh title ~ sho further claimed tat the vospowtonte were tonante of Me Iueken Genet on the dat | ot the deed of conveyance. The respondents, on the || other hand, donied these averments, ‘The first \ respondent alleged ~ 19, Further ond in onsver to paragraph 4 of tho Statomont of Claim, this defendant says that the said Laicton Victor Gonot and his wife lire, Gonet gave him permission te build on the said tand in 1955, Me ata yuita on the said Lond vetvoon 1955 and 1956 and-has bscn in possossion of tho

o f zz

said Land and building from the said date ti12 now. 4. ‘This defendant admits paragraph 5 of the Statoment of Claim and say that the plaintiff on several occasions from 1965 onwards took action for ejoctmont against him in Hagisteato's Court No.4 but on each occasion, over four times, the plaintiff's claim was dismissed.

3. Further this defendant says that if in fact the eaid land was conveyed to the plaintiff as alloged in paragraph 3 of the Stateaent of Claim, the plaintiff had notice of tiis defendant's interest in the said land and took subject to the defendant's intorost."

the sucend respondent also alleged - "9, Purthor and’ in answer to paragraph 4 of the Statonant of Claim, this defendant saya that the said Lucien Victor Genet and his wifo Mrs. Genet gave him permission to mutge onthe sents tans ch-oeenons 1688." - |] Me did build on the said land in or about | 1956: and has beon in possession of the | said land and building from tho said date ti11 now. he This defendant dovs not admit paragraph | 5 of the Statement of Claim. |

5. Further, thie defendant says that if in fact tho said land vas convoyed to the plaintife ag alleged in paragraph 3 of the Statement of Claim, the plaintirt had notice

a : 4 ‘of this defendant's interest in the said | land and took subject to this defendant's interest, :

6. Further or in the alternative, this defendant wilt object in law that the plaintiff's alleged claim is barred by the Limitation Act." At the close of the pleadings it would appear thi the main issues to be determined by the High Court wer (a) Was Lucien Genet, previous to the 17th August, 1961 the fee simple ovner absolute in possession of tho said land? (v) If so, did he effectively in law ppas that interest to the appellant? { (c) vhat was the nature of the interests of the respondents in the said land? (a) dere their interests such as to encumber the said land legally or equitably as alleged in their respective defences? (0) 3f 80, did the appetiant have notice in. law of any such encunberance? (2) did any of the Statute of Limitations apply? ( 4 is clearly apparent from the record of | procesdings both of the Kigh Court and of the Court 0 | ] Appoal that the sitoramtive defonce set up by the sec respondent based on "the Limitation Act" was never pursued. ge Learned trial judge after an exhaustive revi ¢ the evidence and after consideration of the legal | authorities applicable, said as follows:-

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