Christian Ogoo v Rokel Commercial Bank(SL) LTD (CIV APP 76 of 2019) [2021] SLCA 25 (6 May 2021)

u CIV. APP. 76/2019 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SIERRA LEONE BETWEEN : CHRISTIAN OGOG z trading as DATATEL CONNECTIONS —- Appellant AND : ROKEL COMMERCIAL BANK (SL) LTD - Respondents

Coram

HON. MR JUSTICE ALLAN B. HALLOWAY — JSC. HON. MR JUSTICE ANSUMANA |. SESAY JA HON. MR JUSTICE KOMBA KAMANDA JA COUNSEL C.C.V. TAYLOR ESQ. & M.C.L. STRONGE MS. FOR THE APPELLANT

0. JALLOH ESQ. FOR THE RESPONDENTS

Judgement

DELIVERED THIS ¢thDAYOF lay 2024 CHRISTIAN OGOO (Trading as DATATEL CONNECTIONS), the Appellant herein being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Decision/Judgement delivered by the HON. MS. JUSTICE F. BINTU ALHADI J (as she then was), dated the 17 July 2019, hereby, on the 29% August 2019, appeal the said Decision/Judgement on the following grounds 1, Departure from the well-established practice of the FAST TRACK COMMERCIAL COURT, in that the Learned Trial Judge erred in law and or in fact by departing from a well-established practice in the FAST TRACK COMMERCIAL COURT, consistent with the Learned Trial Judge's own practice, to appoint an independent accountant to evaluate and or reconcile the differences between Exhibit ‘A 35° and Exhibit ‘A 235’, the respective statements of account presented by the Respondents and the Appellant at the trial in the Court below, the Leamed Trial Judge who apparently relied exclusively on the said statement of accounts presented by the Respondents leading her to the wrong conclusion that the Appellantis indebted to the Respondents in the sun of Six Billion, Seven Hundred * and Eighteen Million, Six Hundred and Forty Six Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty Three Sierra Leone Leones (SLi. 718,646 723.10) «

14q 2 4 () That the Leamed Trial Judge erred in law and or in fact in her findings that, the Appellant claims to have paid all debts as at 2005 but several correspondences show the contrary, which said correspondences spread from 2006 to 2008, the Learned Trial Judge who did not specify which said exhibits alluded to the contrary that the Appellant z had paid all debts as at 2005 and who apparently failed to consider or give adequate consideration to evidence which showed that the Appellant had extinguished some, if ‘not all of the Six Billion, Seven Hundred and Eighteen Million, Six Hundred and Forly Six Thousand, Seven Hundred and Twenty Three Sierra Leone Leones (SLL6,718,646,723.00), being claimed by the Respondents, the findings of the Leamed Trial Judge, which was based on an improper evaluation of the evidence and therefore precipitated a wrong conclusion that the Appellant was indebled to the Respondents in the sum aforesaid, or at all,

(i) That the Learned Trial Judge erred in law and or in fact, to properly evaluate the evidence or give adequate consideration to many inconsistencies exposed during the trial at the Court below in respect of the computations of the Appellant's statement of account by the Respondents and that in view of Exhibits "B 230’, 'A25' and ‘B 142" respectively, the Leamed Trial Judge erred in law and or in fact to have entered Judgement for the Respondents in the sum of Six Billion, Seven Hundred and Eighteen Million, Six Hundred and Forty Six Thousand, Seven Hundred and Twenty Three Sierra Leone Leones (SLL 6,718,646,723.00) or a all.

(ii) That the Leamed Trial Judge erred in law and or in fact to have accepted the Respondents’ testimony that the sum of Six Billion, Seven Hundred and Eighteen Million, Six Hundred and Forty Six Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty Three Sierra Leone Leones (SLL 6,718,646,723.00) ‘comprises the principal debt and interest accrued over the period of time on the debt and the remainder being interest accrued on the debt at the rate of Twenty Seven (27) percent per annum’... the Learned Trial

Judge who erred in law and or in fact in failing to acknowledge in her Decision/Judgment aforesaid that the loan of Three Billion Sierra Leone Leones (SLL3,000,000,000.00) granted by the Respondent to the Appellant was a discounted loan and that the treatment of the said loan by the Respondent as an ordinary loan was wrong and that the Learned Trial Judge's evaluation of the Respondents testimony excluding Exhibit’B 234’ from her consideration was therefore improper and led her to an erroneous conclusion that, the Appellant was indebted to the Respondents in the sum of Six Billion, Seven Hundred and Eighteen Million, Six ns Hundred and Forty Six Thousand, Seven Hundred and Twenty Three Sierra Leone Leones (SLL 6,718,646,723.00) or at al. (iv) The Learned Trial Judge erred in taw and or in fac in her evaluation of Exhibit ‘A 14 in her Decision/Judgement aforesaid, Exhibit ‘A 14’ of which supported the z

We 195 F Respondents case wholly and when read without reference to the subsequent Exhibit ‘B 234’ which qualified the application of Exhibit'A 14’ in terms of the application of the standing order interest and duration, the Learned Trial Judge was bound to reach @ P \wrong conclusion in terms of the Appellants indebtedness in the sum of Six Blin, Seven Hundred and Eighteen Million, Six Hundred and Forty Six Thousand, Seven Hundred and Twenty Three Sierra Leone Leones (SLL 6,718,648,723.00) which said um is all inclusive of a flawed computation of interest and duration.

3. Misdirection on principles of law, in that the Leamed Trial Judge misdirected herself by failing to apply the principles of natural justice and law to her conclusions, that the sum of Six Billion, Seven Hundred and Eighteen Million, Six Hundred and Forty Six Thousand, Seven Hundred and Twenty Three Sierra Leone Leones (SLL 6,718,646,723.00), specifically her exclusion from consideration of the overwhelming evidence that the Respondents faced many challenges in the computation and or reconciliation of the Appellants statement of account, wrong inclusion of figures into the Appellant's statement ‘of account, unlawful charging of interest upon interest on a discounted loan, unlawful suspension of a loan facility and the computation of interest on the unutlised loan ete. 4, Improper evaluation of the evidence in support of the Appellant's Counterclaim as follows: (i) That the Learned Trial Judge erred in law and or in fact in the manner she dismissed the Appellants Counterclaim, stating inter alia that, the Appellant confirmed that the suspension ofthe loan was as a result of his breach of the terms of the loan in that he aid not hand in the collateral, the Learned Trial Judge who erred in her evaluation and (on the facts presented by the several documentary evidence, namely Exhibits ‘A 11° to'A 13' respectively, in so far as they relate to the Respondents’ breach of contract, the Learned Trial Judge who erred even more to have come to a conclusion that ... ‘the Court cannot find that a breach ofthe contractual agreement occurred... (ii) That the Decision/Judgement aforesaid is against the weight of the evidence. Where for, CHRISTIAN 0GOO (trading as DATATEL CONNECTIONS), the Appellant herein pray as follows: +

41. That the Appeal herein be allowed and that the Decision/Judgement of the High Court delivered by the HON. MS, JUSTICE F. BINTU ALHADI J. (as she then was) dated the 47 July 2019 be set aside together with the Orders thereto.

pe

2. That this Court enters Judgement for the Appellant on his Counterclaim or makes such orders as it may think fit and just in the circumstances including but not limited to the se Cancellation of the mortgages.pertaining thereto.

3. Alternatively, that the Court of Appeal orders an independent firm of Accountants to audit 7 the statement of the Appellant's account held at the Respondents Bank and thereafter make such orders as this Court may deem fit and just in the circumstances.

4. That all proceedings in the matter herein be stayed pending the hearing and determination of the appeal herein, The Leamed Trial Judge, HON. MS. JUSTICE F, BINTU ALHADI J (2s she then was), on the 17% July 2019 ADJUDGED and ORDERED as follows:

1. That the Appellant's Counterclaim be dismissed 2, That the Appellant is liable to the Respondents for the repayment of the sum of Six Billion, Seven Hundred and Eighteen Million, Six Hundred and Forty Six Thousand, Seven Hundred and Twenty Three Sierra Leone Leones (SLL 6,718,646,723.00)

3. That the Respondents’ Bank be penalised for its lack of due diligence and negligence, it is to forfeit the sum of Fifly Million Sierra Leone Leones (SLL 50,000,000.00). 4, That the Appellant is given one (1) month's Statutory Notice from Wednesday the 17 July 2019 to Friday the 16% August 2019, being Notice of intention to sell the mortgaged properties situated at Wilberforce Motor Road, Congo Cross, Freetown and at Kissy Dockyard, Backwind Road, Freetown.

5. That the said sum of Six Billion, Seven Hundred and Eighteen Million, Six Hundred and Forly Six Thousand, Seven Hundred and Twenly Three Sierra Leone Leones (SLL 6,718,646,723.00) is to be paid in Twenty-Four (24) monthly instalments commencing the 91% July 2019.

6. That in the event of a default in any one instalment payment, the entire sum becomes immediately due and owing.

7. Thatin the event of a default in repayment as stipulated in the second and the fifth Orders above, then the Deed of Mortgages in respect of properties situated at Wilberforce Motor Road, Congo Cross, Freetown delineated on survey plan numbered LS 103/95 and at Kissy Dockyard, Backwind Road, Freetown delineated on survey plan LOA 797A dated 1% September 2006 respectively are to be enforced by the sale of the properties aforesaid. * 8 That in the event of compliance with the second and the fifth Orders aforesaid, then the * said properties mortgaged are to be reconveyed to the Appellant herein.

9. Thal Solicitors cost are assessed fo be One Hundred and Twenty Million Sierra Leone Leones (SLL 120,000,000.00). a

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