Dr Joseph Foday Bangura v Ephraim Christian Thompson (CIV APP 21 of 2009) [2015] SLCA 1121 (8 October 2015)

j» GIVAPP 21/2009 . IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF STERRA LEONE BETWEEN: DR JOSEPH FODAY BANGURA ~ APPELLANT AND EPHRAIM CHRISTIAN THOMPSON - RESPONDENTS EUSTACE THOMPSON

Coram

‘THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N C BROWNE-MARKE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT ‘THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE E E ROBERTS JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S A ADEMOSU JUSTICE OF APPEAL (Now deceased) COUNSEL: AE MANLY-SPAIN ESQ for the Appellant VV THOMAS ESQ (as he then was), for the Respondents JUDGMENT DELIVERED THE lhe, OF OCTOBER 2015

The Notice of Appeal

1. The Appellant has appealed to this Court by way of Notice of Appeal filed

‘on 18 June,2009 - pages 93 - 94 of the Record ~ against the Judgment of

SHOWERS,J dated 1 June/2009. The Grounds of Appeal are as follows:

(1) The Learned Trial Judge was wrong in law to uphold the claim of the Defendants/Respondents to adverse possession of the premises situate at 11 Old Railway Line, Tengbeh Town having regard to the evidence adduced.

(2) The Learned Trial Judge was wrong in law to uphold the claim of the Defendants/Respondents that the Plaintiff/Appellant’s claim was statute barred.

(3) The Judgment is against the weight of the evidence.

2. The Learned Trial Judge decided the first issue, ie. as to whether the deed of conveyance dated 15" December 1986 conveyed the property at

11 Old Railway Line, Tengbeh Town to the Appellant, in the Appellant's

; favour. Having concluded thus, it is our view that the Learned Trial Judge had also impliedly declared that the Appellant was the fee simple owner i of the property as this was the purport of the deed of conveyance. Thus it was that the Appellant confined his appeal to the decision relating to whether his action was statute-barred, and whether the Respondents could claim that they had become owners of the property by adverse possession, THE ACTION IN THE HIGH COURT

3. The action was commenced by the Appellant by way of Originating

‘Summons issued on 9 June,2006. The questions posed for the decision of

the Court below, were as follows:

(@) Whether or not by a deed of conveyance dated 6™ June,1975 made between Ephraim Christian Thompson and Jane Miriam Beckley registered as no. 590/75 at page 87 in volume 276 of the Books of Conveyances the said Ephraim Christian Thompson conveyed premises No. 11 Old Railway Line, Tengbeh Town, Freetown to Jane Miriam Beckley.

(b) Whether or not by a deed of conveyance dated 15" December, 1986 and registered as No.1948/86 at page 38 in volume 396 of the Books of Conveyances made between Jane Miriam Beckley as Vendor and Dr Joseph Foday Bangura as purchaser, the said Jane. Miriam Beckley conveyed premises No. 11 Old Railway Line, Tengbeh Town, Freetown to Dr Joseph Foday Bangura,

(©) Whether or not Dr Joseph Foday Bangura is therefore the fee simple owner of the said premises at 11 Old Railway Line, Tengbeh ‘Town, Freetown.

4. Tf each of these three questions was answered in the affirmative, the

Appellant asked that it be Ordered, inter alia, that the 15"

December, 1986 deed of conveyance, conveyed the property at No. 11 to

him; that he was the fee simple owner of the property; and that he do

recover possession of the property from the Respondents. The first two questions were answered in the affirmative by the Learned Trial Judge as appears on page 79 of the Record, and there is no appeal against these

Findings

But at the end, she also decided that the Appellant's claim was statute-barred, and that the Respondents had proved that they were entitled to adverse possession of the property.

Issues in This Appeal

a

5, We think that the issues which call for determination in this appeal are,

first, in whose favour should adverse possession be claimed? And when : does time begin to run against the holder of the paper title to land? Is it

when he purchases the property in dispute, or, subsequently, when his title to the same is challenged, or, when he takes action to counter an act of trespass? If, for example, a man bought a piece of property in 1986 and then another person purported to purchase the same property four years later in 1990, but action was only brought finally in 2005, could it be said that the Limitation period began to run in 1986 when the property was bought, or, subsequently, when action was taken against the alleged trespasser. This was the issue which this Court had to deal with in Civil ‘App 23828/2008 - GASSAMA v SAMA & ANOR. Of course, on the facts of this case, the Respondents are not claiming that they bought property which had been bought earlier by the Appellant: They are claiming that they have been in possession of the property all their respective lives, and that they had a right to ownership and/or possession of the same by Virtue of their blood lines, linking them with the original owner, Ephraim Xenophon Williamson Thompson.

6. However, it seems to us that the person who seeks to claim ownership of land by adverse possession must be a person who is not otherwise entitled by right to the land in dispute: he must either be a trespasser, or, a squatter to use a colloquial expression, or, perhaps a tenant-at-will. The holder of the paper title must have been dispossessed by the trespasser of squatter, or, must have himself discontinued possession. We shall now ‘turn to the facts of this case in order to find out what the real issues in dispute were, and whether the Learned Trial Judge, rightly decided these. issues,

The Orignating Summons

7. The action was begun by the Appellant by way of the Originating Summons issued on 9" June,2006 as stated in paragraph 3, supra. The reliefs sought, have also been summarised in that paragraph. In his affidavit in support of his case, deposed and sworn to on 9 June,2006, the Appellant had this to say: In 1986, he was working in the Philippines. Through a relative of his, he bought the property at 11 Old Railway Lige, Tengbeh Town from Jane Beckley in 1986. A deed of conveyance was executed in his favour by the lady, and the same was duly registered. She also gave him a copy of her title deed, i.e., deed of conveyance dated 6

‘June ,1975 and duly registered as No. 510/75 at page 87 in volume 276 of the Record Books of Conveyances kept in the office of the Registrar-

é General, Freetown. The vendor took him to the property, and introduced him to the Respondents as the new owner. They were told that the occupants of the property would have to vacate the same. He left Sierra Leone thereafter. He returned in 1993. He was told by his late cousin ‘Musa Bangura that the Respondents had refused to vacate the property. ‘Mr Bangura told him he had instituted ejectment proceedings in the Magistrate's Court, but because of his illness, had been unable to attend Court. He, the Appellant returned finally to Sierra Leone in 1996. He found the Respondents still in occupation of the premises.

RESPONDENTS’ AFFIDAVITS IN THE HIGH COURT

8. The Respondents filed three affidavits in opposition, in succession. The first one was deposed to by the 2” Respondent, Eustace Thompson on 12" September 2006. He deposed that the 1 Respondent was his uncle, ‘and was then seriously ill. He was informed by one of his grandparents, the late Ephraim Xenophon Thompson (hereafter * the Testator*) that he was born in Nigeria by Priscilla Thompson, the Testator’s daughter, and that she died shortly after his birth, He was brought to Freetown and lived with his grandparents who brought him up as their own child. They all lived together at 11 Old Railway Line, Tengbeh Town, and that he had always considered the property to be his home. By his Last will and testament, the Testator devised farmland situate at Congo Valley, Freetown, a part of which the No.1 property was built, to 1" Respondent, Jane Beckley, and himself as tenants-in-common. A copy of the will is exhibited to the affidavit as "A". In 1975 when the property at No. 11 was conveyed to Jane Beckley, he was living there, but did not give his consent to the conveyance. That conveyance was later, in paragraph 8 of the same affidavit, exhibited as °C." Now, this seems strange to us, and should have perhaps alerted the Learned Trial Judge that something was wrong here. In paragraph 3, the 2% Respondent had deposed that he was born in 1950. So, in 1975 he was 25 years old, and therefore of full age, with capacity to lawfully execute legal instruments. He did not directly dispute his signature on the 1975 conveyance. So, for all purposes, that conveyance stands as his deed,

9. Now, in paragraph 6 of his affidavit, the 2" Respondent deposed to facts which on any interpretation, showed that he was in fact claiming that the

y

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