Femi Hebron v White Lion Company Ltd & 2 Others (CIV APP 50 of 2017) [2019] SLCA 28 (1 October 2019)

‘ \So ns Page 10136 *' — CIV.APP, 50/2017 INTHE COURT OF APPEAL OF SIERRA LEONE * Between : FEMIHEBRON + Appellant ‘And: WHITE LION COMPANY LTD + 15 Respondent BERARDI GIOVANI (Suing By His Attorey BENON| ROBERTS) ~ 2 Respondent IOANNIS PAPAIOANNOU ~ 3 Respondent

Coram

HON. MR. JUSTICE ALLAN B, HALLOWAY JSC HON. MR. JUSTICE ALUSINE $. SESAY JSC HON. MS. JUSTICE MIATTAM. SAMBA JA COUNSEL C.C.V. TAYLOR ESQ. for the Appeltant A. SHOWERS ESQ. for the Respondents. JUDGMENT DELIVERED THIS /**DAYOF October. 2019 JUDGMENT DELIVERED THIS DAY OF October. 2019 FEMI HEBRON, the Appellant herein, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied wih the Decision/Judgment of the High Court deivered by the HON. MRS. JUSTICE M.D. KAMARA JA, dated the 10° July 2017, hereby on the 11” July 2017, appeal the said Decision/Judgment on the following grounds: '. “That the Leamed Trial Judge feiled to consider or properly consider the case for the Aopelant, thal he was wrengly sued, the evidence being that, the Gund Processing Refinery 7 PlantMachine was not sold to the Appellant Personally, but to an American Company

ii 15f Page 2 of 36 = owned by KELVIN FIELDS, known as PAVILLION GROUP, as confirmed by the testimony of BAMI BAKER, the 1* Defendant at the Court below, under cross examination of him by the Appellant's Solicitor, that he did not sell the Gold Processing Refinery Plant/Machine aforesaid to the said Appellant. %

2. That the Leamed Trial Judge completely misunderstood the Defence of the Appellant herein, when she misdirected herself by holding that BAMI BAKER, the “+ Defendant at the Court below and the Appellant herein who was the 2» Defendant at the Court below are not disputing the fact that the said BAMI BAKER sold a Gold Processing Refinery PlantiMachine to the Appellant herein, but that the sald Appellant bought the said Gold Processing Refinery Plant/Machine in a representative capacity for an American Company owned by one KELVIN FIELDS.

3, That the Learned Trial Judge was wrong in law and on the facts, to find the Appellant herein, @.co-aspirator of BAMI BAKER the 1* Defendant at the Court below and as such, holding that, it stands to reason that the Appellant herein, knowingly bought the Gold Processing Refinery Plant/Machine, knowing that the said BAMI BAKER, did not have the requisite authority to sell

4. That in the light of the evidence which the Learned Trial Judge found, when she stated that the Appellant herein, is said to have bought the Gold Processing Refinery Plant/Machine in a representative capacity as an agent for Pavilion Group owned by one KELVIN FIELDS, the Learned Trial Judge was wrong in law and on the facts to hold that there is sufficient evidence against the Appellant herein, to hold him accountable for the wrongful retention of the Gold Processing Refinery Plant/Machine aforesaid.

5. That the Learned Trial Judge was wrong in law and on the facts to hold that the Appellant herein, is lable both in Detinue and Conversion to the Respondent herein.

6. That the Learned Trial Judge was wrong in law and on the facts to order that the see of the Gold Processing Refinery Plant/Machine and the Generator is void, to order for the immediate return, by the Appellant herein, of the Gold Processing Refinery PlantMachine aforesaid or that the Appellant herein and BAMI BAKER, the 1s Defendant at the Court below, pay the replacement cost of the Gold Processing Refinery Plant/Machine and the

z Generator.

{ Page 3 0f 36 <

7. That the Learned Trial Judge was wrong to access or attempt to assess, the cost of the : Gold Processing Refinery Plant/Machine which were pleaded as particulars of special

damage after she had held that special damages must be strictly proved, but then wrongly holding that ‘however in the absence of any empirical evidence to prove the specifies, : | am inclined to award in substitution for special damages claimed herein, general » damages ete’.

8. That the Judgment is against the weight of the evidence, Wherefore FEMI HEBRON, the Appellant herein, pray that the Decision/Judgment of the High Court delivered by HON. MRS. JUSTICE M.D. KAMARA JA dated the 10 July 2017, be set aside. On the 10% July 2017, the Leamed Trial Judge, HON. MRS JUSTICE M.D. KAMARA JA ADJUDGED and ORDERED as follows:

1. The immediate return of the Gold Processing Refinery Planl/Machine and Generator, ft for purpose

2. Alternatively |. That BAM! BAKER, the 1* Defendant at the Court below and the Appellant herein, jointly and severally pay the replacement cost of the Gold Processing Refinery PlantiMachine assessed at Three Hundred and Seventy Four Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty Six Euros and Ninety Four Cents (€ 374,626/94) or its equivalent in Sierra Leone Leones at the rate of exchange on the date of the Judgment at the Court below. Il That BAMI BAKER, the 1Defendant at the Court below and the Appellant herein jointly and severally pay the cost of the Generator assessed at Nine Thousand United States Dollars (US$ 9,000/00) or its equivalent in Sierra Leone Leones at the rate of exchange on the date of the Judgment at the Court below.

3. General Damages assessed in the sum of One Billion Sierra Leone Leones (SLL1,000,000,000/00). 7

4. Costs assessed at One Hundred Million Sierra Leone Leones (SLL 100,000,000:2.). F

153 Page aof 36 =" The Orders aforesaid were granted, further tothe trial of an action, which was commenced by Writ é of Summons issued on the 8 July 2009, its ‘accompanying statement of claim which was amended

(on the 24 February 2015 pursuant to the order of the Court dated the 11% February 2015, ~ claiming, as contained at pages 390 to 392 of the records herein, A Neclaration that the sale of the Gold Processing Refinery PlantiMachine belonging to the Respondents herein, who were the + Plaintifs at the Court below and purportedly sold by BAMI BAKER, the 18 Defendant at the Court below to the Appellant herein, is void; Return of the Gold Processing Refinery PlantMachine aforesaid, valued at Eight Hundred Thousand United States Dollars (US$ 800,000/00) or its equivalent in Sierra Leone Leones; Damages for breach of contract; Interest; Any further or other Order(s) and Costs. Particulars of the claims aforesaid, are that sometime in 2008, the 2"! Respondent had cause to leave Sierra Leone for medical treatment abroad, due to ill heath and handed over the keys of the 1s Respondent Company to BENONI ROBERTS, one of his Attorneys. The 2"! Respondent later requested the said BENONI ROBERTS to use the keys aforesaid, to open the 1# Respondent Company for BAMI BAKER, the 1s Defendant at the Court below and his intended purchaser, to View the assets of the 1 Respondent Company, which were up for sale, inclusive of lhe Gold Processing Refinery PlantMachine, The said BAMI BAKER, took the keys from the said BENONI ROBERTS after viewing and has since been retaining the said keys and documents of the 15 Respondent Company. The said BAMI BAKER acting beyond the scope of his authority represented to the Appellant herein that the said Respondents had given him authority fo sell all the properties mentioned aforesaid, to the said Appeliant. The said BAMI BAKER submitted a document purportedly executed by the 2" Respondent herein, which said document amounts to a forgery, particulars of which are that, the said document was not prepared by the 2 Respondent herein, that the signature on the document which purports to be that of the 2n¢ Respondent was not the signature of, nor it is similar to the signature of the 2nd Respondent herein and that the Passport umber endorsed on the document giving the said BAMI BAKER, authority to sell, is not the Passport number of the 2° Respondent herein. The said BAMI BAKER together with the Appellant herein entered the premises of the Respondent Company, took and carried away all mechines, equipment and furniture aforesaid to the premises of the Appellant herein, the said Appellant who claimed that the machines, equipment and furniture were sold to him by the said BAMI BAKER, himself acting or selling as owner thereof without any form of consent. The Respondents herein, have since been put out of business and have suffered huge financial loss and psychological % Stress by reason of the matters aforesaid.

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