Donald Macauley v Emmanuel Shallop And Another (SC MISC APP 3 of 1984) [1984] SLSC 8 (17 May 1984)

EX_THE SUPREME COURT OF STERRA LEONE

Coram

The Hon. Mr. Justice C,A, Harding, J.S.C, - Presiding The Hon, Mrs.Justice A,V.A, Awunor-Renner - J:8.C, | The Hon. Mr, Justice S, Beccles Davies = 3sS.C. | | S.C. Mise. App. 3/84 | BETWEEN: Donald Macaulay = Applicant vs. | Bnmanuel Shallop and Mirib Shallop = Respondents T.$, Johnson, Esq,, for the Applicant A.J.B. Gooding, Esq., for the Respondents RULING DELIVERED ON THE 177M DAY OF MAY, 1984 HARDING, J.S.C.:- The respondents in proceedings instituted in the High Oourt obtained judgment, with costs to be taxed, on jra February, 198% against the applicant for "the sum of U.S. Dollars 129,566.15 or 1e323,915.38 plus interest thereon at the rate of 18% from the 8th day of September, 1980 until the date of | judgment, On 10th February, 1984, the applicant through his solicitor, filed a Notice of Appeal against tho said judgment in the Court of Appeal, and on the following day i.0,, 11th February | he applica to the Court of Appeal for a stay of execution of the judgment of the High Court pending the hearing and determination of the appeal. On 27th February, 1964; the Court of Appeal refused the application for a stay} likewise it turned dovn a cebecquent appidontion for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the order of refusal of stay. ‘tue applicant has now applied to this Court for the fo1towin

Orders

F b= Mes

(4) An order granting the applicant special Leave to appeal against the order of the Court of Appeal contained in its Ruling of 27th February, 1984) + (44) an order granting a stay of execution and a11 further proceedings of the Judgment and order of the High Court dated February 3, 1984 already appealed against by Notice of Appeal filed in the Registry of the Court of Appeal on 1th February, 1984, ponding the hearing and determination of the said appeals

(444) An Order that the costs of and occasioned by this application may be costs in the intended appeal."

Z have Listened carefuily to the arguments of counsel on both sides and read the various affidavits and exhibits thereto fied herein, As regards the firet order applied for, I do not think that this is @ proper case calling for the exercise of ay discretion to grant special leave; accordingly, T would refuso special teave to appeal to this Court, Special leave to appeal to this Court having veen refuscd it necessarily follovs that no order for a tay of execution of tho judgment can be ordered by this Court.

v coutd dismiss the application with costs to the respondents.

yb Giga es SiSkiSS SEAL ardiggs “Ss.

Presiding) Tagroo sesesseseerers gh is Has SUNS BL HEE BasiC SRE

AMUNOR-RENNER, J.3.C.:- I have arrived at a different conclusion from that reached by my learned brothers on the question of granting special leave to appeal to this Court in this matter.

Tne applicant applied to this Court on the 2kth day of March, 1984 for the following Orders on a Notice of Motion dated the auth March, 1984,

(1) An Order granting the applicant special leave to appeal against the Order of the Court of Appeal contained in its fuling of the 27th February, 198.

(2) An Order granting a stay of execution y and all further proceedings of the judgment an order of the High Court dated Fobruary 3, 1984 already appealed against by Notice of Appeal on 10th February, 1984, pending the hoaring and determination of the said appeal. |

(3) An order that the costs of and occasioned by this application may be costs in the intended appeal. | the said Notice of Motion contains the grounds upon which special leave to appeal is sought. :

A onort history of this matter discloses that on the 3rd day of February, 1984, the High Court gave judgment and ordered the applicant herein to pay the sum of Le.323}915.38 plus interest t thereupon at the rate of 18% from the 8th day of September, 1980 until the date of tho said judgment to the Aespondent herein.

on the 11th February, 1984 the applicant applied to the Court of Appeat for a stay of execution of the said Judgment of the igh Court dated dra February, 1984, In a ruling delivered on February 27th 1984 the Court of Appeal refused the application for a stay:

| 1 think that it would be convenient for mo at this stage to

| : IN eeee

“ sHoRT, gua. This is an application by T.S, Johnson Esqvy of Counsel for the Appellant/Applicant herein for an ordor granting a stay of execution of the judgment and order of the High Court contained in the decision of Mr. Justice William 4.0, Johnson Judge, dated the 3rd day of Fobruary, 1984, The judgnent referred to amounts to tho payment of the sum of U.S. dollars 129,566.15 or Le.323,915.38. Rule 28 of the Appeal Court Rules is bare. Order 42 rule 19(1) of the mite Book states inter alia "whore a judgment is given or an order made for the payment of money by any porson and the Court or judgo 19 satisfied an application made at the time of the Judgment or order or at any time thereafter by the judgment debtor or other party Liable to execution that thore are special circum stances which renders it inexpedient to enforce the judgment or order or that the judgment debtor is unable from any cause to pay the money, then the Court or Judge may order stay of execution of the judgment or order by ¥rit of Fiori Facias ete." It would appear that the only grounds on which under the above rule the Court can otay exocution on a judgment debt or order for payment of money are oither that there are special circumstances which render it dnexpedient to enforce the Judgment or order or that the judgment debtor is unablo from any causo to repay the money. Neither the affidavit of Thomas Sigismund Johnson sworn to on tho 11th day of February nor tie affidavit of Donald Marius Alison Necaulay evorn to on the 21st day of February, 1984 discioses any special cdreunstances which might rendor Lt inexpodient to enforce the jJadgmont or order or that the Judgnont debtor jis unable from any cause to pay the money,

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