Bank of Credit & Commerce International v The Charge D'affaires of the Republic of Ivory Coast Embassy in Sierraleone (MISC APP 3 of 1982) [1983] SLSC 14 (21 September 1983)

| MSG. Ape. n0.3/62 7

| THE SUPREME COURT oF steRRA Leone : conane | The Hon. Me, Sustice CoA. Hosving, 3.5.C. — Prosiding . & The Hon, fir. Justice 0.8.8, Tejon = 2.8.c. 1a ‘The Hon. Mr, Justice S. Beccles Davies - 3,5.C,

i serucens : The Bank of credit & Commerce a International = Apolicante “4 ‘na om The Charge D'Affaires of the 4 fapublic of the Ivory coast al Enbeosy in Sierra Leone Aeting a for and on behelt of the Repusiie i of Ivory Coast, Frestoun = Kospondent a Gorves

3. Sette, Eoq.,(uith him Mies Patrice Uelicetey-Cole) A for tho Applicants 4 Tite Terry, Cages for the Respondent aN i 4 RULING DELIVERED THIS 21ST DAY oF sceTEMBcR, 1983 4 Sse WAROING, 345.C.:+ Tho Rpplicants herein vere the [a Respondents in Civil Appeal 60/81 before the Court of Appeok k Ba ‘end the Respondent herein was the Appellant. The application Be before us te for specie! leeve te eppeal to thie Honourabie Sg ———CCourE ageinet the Judgment and Order of the Court of Appost a dated 1Sth April, 1982 wade therein and for a stay of 4 execution ond or proceedings on the Judgment and Order q aforeseid on terms pending the hearing of the proposed appeal. The events leading up to thie appication may be 4 catalogued a8 follouss= yt On 29th Juno, 1961, the Respondent took out @ specially 1% Andoreed Urit claiming, inter alia, repeynent of the sun of

{ L0,18,000/00 pus interest fron the,applicante. Service , | of the Urit vos effected on that sane day on the Appiicante ie On Sth Netober, 1961, the Kespondent obtained Judgeent i ]e sn datautt of Datence and caus « rit of Flore vo oe x oe Sasved against the Applicants. On the following day in Boe Fesponse to the rit of Fife tho Applicants Sesued @ S]e ——eneave mace payabie to the Master and Registrar for the sum Salt ae of Le.21, 605.10, ooh oa On 7th October, 1981, before clearance for paynant of "GE, srw wats crocus ves eftectec, on en Cx-parte appiieation ; Po nado by the Applicatns inter alie (1) to set aside the Urit eS of Fifa (2) alternatively for an interim stay of tho es Writ of Fite pending an eppiicetion to set acide the i be ‘a Judgment in Default and 011 subsequent proceedings

(3) GEE erat 0 utgnont in Detault of Ontance bo eat ede and ) ae (4) that Leave be granted to File e defence to the urit a: of Summons, Thompson-Oavis, 2. ordered (a) that the oa Dereurt Judgment and ali subsequent proceedings including —_ (b) that the application by Motion be served on the other “a de 0s on the Respondent, and the aatter adJourned to ar 19th October, 1901. | oat og (On Sth October 1981, before aver the motion vee heard | counsel for the Respondent sought Leave of the Learned 3udge 1 to appeal to the Court of hppeal against the interim order ante on 72h October 1901; 1eave vas granted on 21et detovers 7 _—ace a On 15th April, 1982, the Court of Appeal alloued the . qa appeal, set aside the Orders of Thompson-Davis, 3. and 7 7 substituted therefor an interim order for a stay of + d proceedings, on the Applicants, on or before the 16th of

j APE, 1901, paying to the Woepondunt the sum of Le«21,606.10, the Wespondent to give a uritton undestaking to repay the ‘ald smount to the spplicants or any amount that mey be ordered to be yeid by any competent Court in Sierra Leone to the hppliconts after the Final determination of the ~ ue setion. It further ordered that on payment of the aid Fe snount the Master and Megistrar of the High Court wae te 1 ae Place the original Motion brought by the Applicants to set saide the Derauit Judgment before Thompson-Dovie 2, or 1 Another Judge of the High Court for heating inter partes. “3 On 16th Apes2, 1902, the nppiicante sought deave of at the Court of Appeal to appeal against the Order of 18th ee "pri, 1902, to thie Court, but the application vas reused H i 4nd counsel hes now applied to this Court for Special leave 7 to sppeel ageinst the aforesaid drier. hd et Ae steted stove, before ever the Applicante original : Motion vas hoard by the High Court the Respondent on 9th ; Detober, 1981, appeated ageinst the interin Order made on : 7th October, 1961 to the Court of Appeel. The grounds oF a a ®ppeal may be summarised as follous:= ie i

(1) Bies on the part of the earned trial : Budge, he boing the lessor af” the Aegpondent 8

(2) That the tesrned trfa1 Judge ought not on a an txeporte application te mace eae an o. Sntorin Order ‘staying the Defacde sedrcant fnd'all subsequent prosuedings tnoweaing ‘ the Urit oF Ficfe for s period of Pict Saye,

(3) That there was no longer in existence « a rit of Fife ae the seid Unie nee siready ee been executed on 6th Oetooars 190) tana a consequence the Order of Teh’ Ootever 1361 4 setting aside the Urit or Fiore seer ana j sede in veins ; Th Court of Appeal made no adjudication a» regerae (3) 7 but as regards (1) and (2) held Tespectively that there vas nothing to warrant their coming to the conclusion that there } 4 wes 2 likelihood of bias if the learned triel Judge set as

he did at the hearing of the Ex-parte Motion and thet tho | lesrned trial Judge had power to grant interim stey on Orders of the learned trial Judge and to Order payment of the amount claimed to the Respondent by the applicants, on 4 the Kespondant giving » written undertaking to repay if so ES ordered by any competent Court in Sierra Leone a8 a condition | for listing the original Motion before the High Court for | hearing. B Both in the affidavit in aupport of the original Motion es and in that in support of the present one, the Solicitor = fe for tho Applicants had deposed thet beéause of the a Respondent's diplomatic status any money once paid may not a be recoverable by lepei process. siaoy dn the affidevit tn a Support of the present application before us it was stated Bi that the Applicants were prepared to pay into Court the ee emount claimed pending the hearing and determination of a“ this spplication as yell as tho proposed eppesl. ie er Counted for the #plscante hee urged that the matter Bo 48 one of sufficient public taportance to varrent this = Court granting specisl 1eeve to appeel against the dudguent ea of the Court of Nppeat dated 18th Apri, 1902. We retersed Br to See.3 of the Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges het, | ie, Mo.35 of 1961 and to Haleburye Lave of England 3rd Edition, ieee Volume 16 paragraph 19 and Volume 7 paragraphs 7, 571 and { ne 876 and leo to the case of DUFF DEVELOPMENT CO. ve 4 KELANTAN GOVERNMENT (1924) A.C. 797, He submitted that the : 8 Aeeuing of @ Writ and o submission to the jurisdiction made a by @ foreign envoy does not amount to a waiver of execution, . 4 He submitted further that on analysis of the Judgsent and 4 the Court of Appeal Order they dig not consider thet the : " Motion before the High Court wae ripe for hearing because 4 by such an Order the High Court was precluded from making

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