Firetex International Company Limited v Sierra Leone External Communications And Another (MISC APP 20 of 2004) [2004] SLCA 16 (1 May 2004)
Firetex International Company Limited v Sierra Leone External Communications And Another is a miscellaneous application from Sierra Leone on 1 May 2004. Cite it as [2004] SLCA 16. Search it by the party names, the citation [2004] SLCA 16, or Sierra Leone miscellaneous application.
May 1, 2004
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
Firetex International Company Limited
Appellant
v.
Sierra Leone External Communications And Another
Respondent
MISC APP 20 of 2004
[2004] SLCA 16
Proceeding. Miscellaneous application. Sierra Leone.
1 et Eo 125 MIS.APP, 20/2004 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SIERRA LEONE CERIFICATE OF THE ORDER OF THE COURT a . RULE 35(1) BETWEEN: FIRETEX INTERNATIONAL COMPANY LIMITED = / AND SIERRA LEONE EXTERNAL. : COMMUNICATIONS AND é SIERRA LEONE TELECOMMUNICATIONS - COMPANY LIMITED
Ruling
MURIA, TEJAN-JALLOH JJA, TUNIS J: The applicant seeks a of the order of this Court given on 46" June 2004, an the grounds deposed to In the of SBG in support of the application. The stay of excoution is sought pending appeal to the Supreme Court. Among the grounds relied upon, and very much the main thrust of the application for stay of execution, is that the contention that enforcement of the judgments will cripple the applicant financially. We have cause to refer to the affidavits of Mr. Samuel Boston-Griffiths in support of the applications, the affidavits of N.C. Browne-Marke exhibiting also the affidavit of C.C.V. Taylor and the exhibits thereto. Having considered the materials before us, we are clearly of the view that the case against granting a + stay is substantial. We do not loose sight of the undertaking given by the applleant’s Managing Director which was not complied with. We are also of the
: Zale
view that the Judgment/Order of this Court, given on 16" June 2004 particularly paragraphs 3 and 4, are unlikely to be complied with in the light.of what we have discovered in the materials now before the Court. We must abide by the principle that stay of execution should only be granted if there are “special: circumstances” shown. We regret that no such special circumstances have been shown here. We are also mindful that as an appeal has been filed in the Supreme Court, the Court must ensure that the appeal if successful is not a nugatory. Having considered these factors, we should issue i an “unless order” in this case. Thus the order of the Court will be:
“stay of execution is refused unless the applicant paid
into Court the sun of Le.61,450,000.00 by the close of
banking business on Wednesday afternoon 7" July 2004.
Liberty to apply”.
Judges
The judges named in this report. Each page lists their other judgments on Lanbuk.