Fawaz Ayoub v Lucy Macauley (24 of 1994) [2001] SLCA 12 (9 April 2001)

ae : ee orn am nd E; op. ab/gh DEE RMRaDRS uaa aeage Maa ig z sive rh. aly yh Berroa toes cy eae = RS? RGU 2 2 SUB COURT OF APPEAL FOR SIERRA ERONE 0 0) PRESEN Ry cat oo ASE ve: a ae FAVA AYOUB ce, naa i ace ice tan on ‘ a z AS ao ae oor macnn SA Vale retoaan 3 AN ee ae ae a oe SEE BE S eN eae coratie~ we eas Mae onskra, sutton Vuk Deietpht. ye aga GN 6 2h armbtikenets cee he Hon. Mr. Justice ND, baa gg poe nt ne Hon, Mrs Justice’ Fios Oho a ce lions Maney ok we one Mes Sua 0s ee ae Si. ron a a eae 2, RVINOOR-RROUER BSG, FOR A PFET MC oes r Memes a SESE HE af ‘oBs SURRY-KAMAL ESQ. FOR THE RESPONDING : freseie? suse seavmo ms Ts pnt _zoor TuET 005.0. Spee ER rE | ‘ade ir as Appeal from the Judgetent’ Of the: don paseesimomertact 0" SRE eee ss al ‘Thompson delivered on the 24th March, 1994 sonia te naa My By sue Grovat: of appeal are as follows:- Tepe £ het the Learned Trial Judge having found as a fact that the ) Lease required the Defendant to notify the Pleinti' ‘6 i dag : sr nes fm to base its reasoning on the reguivenent of wntitten cogent eg 42+ That the Learned trial Judge found as a fact that the plaints s weuted Sucrease in the rente went on to ordgr the forfeiture of the Lenses ee re i Ai. That the Judgement is ve fehe ‘eriaenten) 08 39 the Jude: against the’ Weight of ‘the wee oie 1 112 uot G2 into the history of the case as ay Learned Brother has sr oeury done se dn IMs Judgement which I had the opportunity of aeading mut | > . 4 »il2 poiat cut certoin portions of the Statement of Claim which were ae

1. The Plaintiff is owner of Land and premicos Now 182. . Hensessy street, Kingtom, Freetoin. i «+ “osetino in late December, 1980 ond early 1981 the Plaintiff ve [eevecee

te “eS Ub hs 2 orally ogreed with the Defendant to lense to hin a Age at oe portion of her end at Hennessy Street, Kington, It 7 was agreed that the plaintiff would locate and point "| out to the defendant the portion leased to bir. Bi 2+ Before the plaintiff has an opportunity of dotig ap fds) i defendant, on hie own carried out 0 eutvey of the plaintiff's property without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff. He thereafter consulted his own solicitor who drev up a lease containing terms aot : specified by the plalati tes | mie: was conbewiy 6 MBI. 47 spirit and letter of the ore) errengenent oe og pertics as the plaintiff had informed the defendent cho would instruct her own solicitor to prepare a Lease for the defendant's account setting forth to teras and conditions under which she would be prepared to let her property. ‘Zt was agreed between the parties that the defendant would construct an additional substantial building to the land, Instead of doing oo the defendant illegally desbliched the plaintiff's existing building there. 5+ On or about the 27th May 1981 following persistent denande and snxiety about a lease, the defendant induced the plain~ ttt to execute a tenancy agreement before the site plan vac available. The plaintif? subsequently discovered that the defendant had curveyed and appropriated sich wore loud than he was entitled to with the result that : « portion of her access. read was closed causing the Plsintift considersble inconvenience. G. ‘the said Tenney Agreewent was prepared and registered uy the defendant's own solicitor as No.95/81 at Volume 70 * Page "? in the Books of Leases and contain inter alia covenants iy the Tenant. eee

Loe a . (a) Against underieti thout nofite Bad consent =k ae (b) 0 sneure SOM COR Peeve gees is ean alee Ne (c) To paint every two years bie i Feicaee: Bere eae a

(2) Zo erect an additional Bieutipe tame yeas” ical Pe ee ic 7+ he plaintitt says thet the defendant £4 tn Brauch of the : terms of the said Tonaney Agreenent hati | ees i (a) Be sublet the premices without nettles Be plaiat Pal % securing her consent thereto. contrary to Clause CBR) 4 a in A ea ics Na

(2) “He failed to erect an additionad eat micenealnn’ die ’ on at all, contrary to lange bee C er te (e) Re fated to insure tie pedal day CbmtMNy iE Claueue( wil): es AE Fos os Ban (@) He failed to paint the intericr of the premice once 4h every two years contrary. to Claige 7s ‘ a Noguera sates Sighs Mesa 9. ay letter dated 20tn marcy 1968 ie ganar eb ed wel a se er ae Owes, cea useing ane te give oix(6) monthat notice to the difuudant tn accordande with’ Slouse (vi) and (vii) of the Tenancy Agrdenent of the above ‘stated defect and breaches of covenant inviting the plaintiff to redédy ‘thea ou to pay compensation theseattér. fhe détetiiie ‘ae gues)! B Se TEN eh these demands. bige There were several covenants in the lease which the respondent claimed the sppeliants where in breach but the Learned frial Judge found that the spre? lant wae ia breach of only Clause 2(a) of Exhibit "D" which reads es follovs:- eo. i 2 i Se) Cheam tartan a (a) NOP to assign underlet or part With the possession or the doniced premises or any part there without previously informing the Lessor, consent should not be unreasonably e withheld in the case of a responsible and recpectabie ; person firm company. Be Ts ¢ The vention now is did the respondent give her consent for the sivec to ffratiet tin-premtonie the ‘suwhde, 6:8 tat Vhon the Yatusing ol inl cry “be complained to her lawyer that the appellant had blocked u wot which che vas using and made seversl ‘attemptsito ctop him oe suey

: ac Ge ge oe es ‘rou vonetmveting the wall, i Near ott soe "he Teamed Trial Judge sn his {udgomont ead all Sa gesncctnd

avidence of the respondent to thit of the azpebaaat ia) Sine Hon. adie GL) Sent ook Uning elven by the SHepeHaR ae tha ANEMIC exuagh pelotan 7 Of Mr proasoce to one Mrs Jette, T 46 not ane wow £ den iBterfo ee "he Thing 0° Whe Lenrned total Judge lash head thy Solty ogg “vas of the evdesces He abv the denomcie of hth wltasanes, | vu rightly cane to the concliston that he pretpntod) iietanda, ek ee tae Covmit 2 ttt he apelin GH OP “ca Fuge 297 Paragraph 510 on the Rote of the Thal Judge, hs a "He (the Judge) wild coe that "the sdvocates bakers = themsolves seemingly, and keop to benkicna aig A snd keep to the futee ald an By dala Gil he exclude irrelevances and discourage’ repetition, | °! Me 0 that the case will not dvds on 466 Jonghe cd Will make sure by wise intervention that hé fellows Me points thet the atvocates arp making and can svcese their worth dnd at the eid’ ne Wish Ball Yip sf Me mind where the truth ies, and give hie judguent cccording to Law, "> Leorned triot Judge with respect Sn wy opinton doce not have to give “ay reason for his preferences earned Counsel for the respondent aald at the easing of the apbeet. that, "is sewondent had complained several tines to her forser e6liditer ebéut hen Consent not being given to the subletting of the prémizes and thé Blocking of ‘Ss cecsse rout Jong Before Leg action was takes Gn the satlers ‘tle mas not chal2onged by Counsel for the raponll ate: ee HS Mut che coquteced to the eubletting of the premiaée. Tt is rather uTortauate that there wan no cross append. ‘on’ hie wets "hough the Lose ad not state that the coneettishoulé be given in ” t At worle have been prudent on the part of the appellant to have obtained

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