Fatu Bangura v Mohamed Kamara2 (MISC APP 6 of 1995) [1995] SLCA 2 (26 March 1995)
Fatu Bangura v Mohamed Kamara2 is a miscellaneous application from Sierra Leone on 26 March 1995. Cite it as [1995] SLCA 2. Search it by the party names, the citation [1995] SLCA 2, or Sierra Leone miscellaneous application.
March 26, 1995
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
Fatu Bangura
Appellant
v.
Mohamed Kamara2
Respondent
MISC APP 6 of 1995
[1995] SLCA 2
Proceeding. Miscellaneous application. Sierra Leone.
a 7 84 \ WESC. APP, 6/95 : ; |
DY mE COURT-OPTAPREAL OF SURRRA LEONE | 4 BEDVEEN:— 3 a : : pam BANGURA © 7 7 DEFENDAN D/ MOHAMED “SAVARA - DILINGLFF/ : | ~ CORAM: ~ ; HON, ER. JUSEICE M,0, ADCPEY, — JUSTICE OF APPEAL HON. MR. JUSeICk @, Chu A-TTG = JUSTICE OF APPEAL HOR... MR. JUSTICE A.B, TL20 - JUSTICE OF APPEAL C.F. EDWARDS ESQ., YOR THE AYPLICAET Zi AvP. SERRY-KAMAL, uSQ., FoR THE RESPONDENT RULING DELIVEDED Oh mer 260% Diy OF MARCH, 1995 ' TIMBO J.A.t- BY Notice of Motion deved the Qth day of February E 1995 the Applicant has applied to the Court for inter alia the | following order, i "(3) that this Honourable Court do geant a Stay of the 4 Judgment of the Honourable Ir. Sustice 1.3.0. Nylander Je f dated the 25th day of Hovenber 1994 and all subsequent E proceedings pending the nearing and determination of the ee Appeal against the said Judgaent to the Court of Appeal. »" co i a Te Applipatio:. is supported by the of Fatu Bangure > i sworn to on the 6th day of Fewcuery 1995 to which is annexed several a | Exnibits. Bae Paragraph 5,6 * 44 in pesticular of the Affidavit in support fi aver as follows: ll "5 That notwithe taming the pending appeal to the Court of K Appear Gad Re SHIGE OF OseUpTeLOn OFS BEF oF osonpition Of TEE scticremses for * i peal one NS eon ee rE gO days the Plaintisf/Reapoate: is = the. habit of coming 3H * tothe said premises with prospective purchasers claiming thater: Juégnent: has ngen given in pis favour, and that Tenould wioste-|™ smediately". Pea are yh 66 Tha’ further io parngrayh 5 of this Affidevit the yee Plaintiz(/Respondent has counag 2 valuation of the eatd dit premises to be prepared end addressed uae to my solicitor iif: a.7, Bawords Baa. Copy ° valuation Jortizicate le shown ict to we and extibited hereto Te coma s. oe
je en a “er 88 : Bare bay me Dace y; "7 That I kmow for a fact from a conversation I over-heard / Ld between the Mohamed Mazara tnd Me, itu Sesay that J s the Plaintiff intends to dispose ov the proces at 44 Mill Street immediately possessicn of the sore is delivered to hin." As against these avernents, ve Dave the Affidavit in J Opposition of ir, A.F, Serry-Ksisl, fclicitor dvted the 15th dayof February 1995 parszgranh 13 of «hich entuorvieslly states that, , "43 That Plaintiff does not intend to sell his only property in Freetovm, He needs 2 house in Freetown now more than at any other time in view of the security situation in the Provinces, He is a businessman wd necés a base in Freetown instead of renting a hotel room anytine »eis’ in Freetown." This Court has said on sevyerol occasions that in an application for a 1 pending an appeal to the Court the ‘onus is on the applicant to “show prisn facie good Grounds of Appeal and the existence "of Special cireuetances to justify Ine the grant of the stay souht - Scz African: Tokeh Village Lta, ay ¥. John Obey Devclopzent Investment Co, Lta, Mise Apps 2/94 : (Unreported) Domain De Bax Baw Beach V. Mohoned Kk, Wansa, Miso, App. 10/44 (Unreported); Chernor Sesay % Anor V. Abdul Jalil & Anor, Misé, App. 18/44 (Unrevorted) , These two recuircizents have not in iy opinion. been satisfied t to warrant a Stay of Execution of “uc dudyent of Nylander J H dated the 25th aay of Noverber 1994 ané@ 211 subsequent Broceedings | pending the hearing oné_detoYitinavior of the appeal against the f said judgment in the Court of Appenl, if | In any ease, I velieve the fexrs expressed by the Applicant in her Affidavit that the property the subject-matter of the i appeal may be disposed of before the dctoxination of the appeal B | if the Stay is not granted have been cllaycd in view of what Mr, j | . Serry-Kar:al hve said in paragraph 13 ov his Affidavit of 15th i Pebruary, 1995 tit the Responte.) hes no intention of selling i the property in vuestion vit to ceoxpy iG biraclt, telecaster) \
CN a Peay! &b Ree ee yy
/ = Bee ie
+ I have no doubt that Mr Serry Kamel will stana by what he has deposed in his Affidevit regarding his client's desire to reside in the said house. The Application is accoréingly. resused, Costs in the . Cause, \ eet m Hi Sus A Ae i: y b: A.D, Win 5 H (saga) F0Rs Hts Suieloe AB. Wine tioe of Appeal ' (gin 4 b ae 1 . . Hon, Mr, Fashtos EO. Adohay j (S ga) es Ser ed eres of Appeal f (sgayHOn; Ma, Justice ¢r¢dlam—ting 444 of Appeal
It H k Be : 5 he
+ Z
Judges
The judges named in this report. Each page lists their other judgments on Lanbuk.