Florence Kamara v Umu Kamara (8 of 1992) [1990] SLCA 1 (6 February 1990)

aan e is Cty « UY, ape, sto, 8/92 : 0 bh ji teeny ag ff PLOREROE KAMARAT is otitis) Lice gag Ai dune Bee ic } wo (ADKINISTRATRIX OF WHE ESTATE OF Noses BASTBY ly i TAiaRA (DECEASED) ~ DVTESTATH &°APPERTAWD leo ty m oe? OG? an eae ey seis Sox 29 aati aren i * UMU_KAMARA oBeug Remmene | etiam.) nae ALUSENT et PeeEor ed oes iti TSLLIGATU * ANERRAME Sho uckRa | FER GUARDIAN AD ABITEMDigaamegy) oy | NE era 8 aii Tuba tage PE a mae ns eee te Be Ly zoeds, akin pug a ee this apgeal 1s from a Judgidiit 18%6 WOVE Action wy 1 Srivinating Summons dated 26th Tikes 1UB6 sag court ane belay, 6.0. 533/86. 496 i paper cagon : IN THE. HIGH COBRONGRs fanaa He pe IN THE ESTATE OF SHR SRRRA ah je Re (osceAsEDy Tine apts oe cag eet ai Saakgbst, ab, bavi: Steger BETWEEN: FLOI K ~.{ PREC OF Oe ae ee ~ PLATWRIFR aFMEOORD BGP pete: Le cau tam soot? APB Got sua ee San

2. ALusTy i custato tage eae owe ee &. seunréane. a g ro GUARDIAN AD LIMES): ~ yr J i RESTON mite Civil Suit hae, to say the Least, ‘ail el CHeguilhel ietory.. athe vlasneifr, Ploronce Kamara, died on the 5th day Gf Mdy,"2987, ‘ad it los death baa not completed the Administration of the étate of tldaeg » Svidu Kamara, deceased, Intestate, ‘her Wve tuduadde oH the LOth Gatos of august, 1968 vrs. Bether Sankoh,-the rherub swe? att Org . ‘wst~of-Kin of Florence Kanara, wag granted’ hettehs WeAdniniethedton ef «il snd singular the real and pergondl estate Which by daw devott es: 9» and Vests in the personil representative of Florence’ Kamara, aepedse Intestate, Ty Order of Court dated the 15th diy ‘of Déééiper, 1988 gst wus ordered ug follows:= wm 03 Stopte feegs 2 “ ----~ that lire Bsther Sankoh be substituted for us ‘Piopondel ds minty Gecessed a9 plaintiff in this action apd that the action deyem|) continue in the nome of Rocher’ Sankoh off plddibife acing’ ee Bee lerendante ond that the costs of thie abpttet soe wel hel” evbnitehert tahe of Noses Kemira, decedsed.” Honea Bag eee . GR AED ING te ta pate

<< See Slo eo aa | we On the 6th day of February, 1990, the Courl deliverai its hod Judgment in the said Originating Summons. The Judguent i= as follows: 0.6, 533/86 1986 K we, a9 ' IN THE HIGH COURT OF STBRRA LEONE IN THE ESTATE OF MOSES SAIDU KiwARA’ (Da TARAS) Tay so ‘ BETWEEN: FLORENCE KAMARA y (ADWINISTRATRIX OF THE BSTATZ CF NOSIS SAr% t (DEcRASED) ~ InTasmare. - AAISITP UUU KAMARA ALUSINE KAMARA Joa SPSDEIGATD KAMARA ~ (AN INFAND TY OMU KAKARA Hue F Gov), 3) MCUARDIAN ADETTAM) - DEFENDANY'S TUESDAY THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1990 BROOKE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICZ Ne, AUUAIE ~ oI) This fatter coming up for hearing on divers d-tus befor ie Gourt and this day for Judguent in the presence of pr. /.3, vives dom Fplef Counseél:-tor ‘tite’ piadtiee dna c. a. Osho-Villivus, seuste oF so. for the defendants. And Upon reading-the Summons and various affid. vite 241 oe IT IS THIS DAY ORDERED AS FOLLONS:~ 1, Mut the premises 3 & 4A Findlay sno, Cff Jilkiowou wud be sold by Private Treaty. . 2, That the Solicitor of the plaintirr and the detendints have conduct of the sale.

3. That one-half of the proceeds of sale be poid to the pL-tntiry to hold as Trustee for the Estate of Plorence xnu ra (ecw 6 1 4, That the other half be paid to the defendints to te ‘utritus among them equally. 5. @hat one-fourth share of the Uti defenieat te held by ie Lob H . defendant as Trustee for the 4th defend:nt.

6. Mhattthe costs of these proceedins ve paid equally Solicitors of the parties out of tie cstute. LY Bock ee ° BOD: a. SG IES {On the 8th, day. of May, 1991, the Gourt ordere: tat exveusion of « Judguent, of th9; Oh February, 1990 be stayed until rurcher ove. On the 7th day of February, 1992, the Court ordered as rollos:~ “IP 18 THIS DAY ORDERED that the orders of this Court Jats

Sori ep aes 3g 7 Lith Ouevwhery 1988 and 6th February, 1990 be set eside and ua ve * Bat te costs of this ur eee adiehea’ gg 7 . : 2012048 OL Red at: phord abs apbet PM It is ageinst this order of the High Courts dated thes ret Sausor: : Tehmwry, 1992, that the Appellant has come to. this, Court, 2pp means: ‘2 In the lotiee of Appeal, the Appellant gompleinedythat thehea neg © ‘pial Judge wos wrong in Lew in setting aeigestheverder .of ithe, 1st? Deowurbery 1988, and the Tudguenk Sataeih BAP URMEL ARTE cn Mill! Ac for the order of the 15th Decembety 198y sthasheueraent gi nee asther Sankoh, having, obtained Lpttapeno’ Ate lestaes ce tam aatet of Plorence Kanara, her, sister,,Wes GOBBRYHE oS guNGE site ues Plovence Jamar, as adninietratrex of sthengebet aude Moses Sadat ager hoe Late husband, This Court tindgcno ment? 4Bubhia waent sus abaaey, bh “agetlunt, “Plonence Hanare.daghdtnted he ReHAgin PE ste Bp das epresentutive capacity, as edmtatats obeuetighe @oczeaute usbend, On her death her office 26 sch 18 ex hing Renee ‘at vou a situation in which there js a chain of represengatlengnaon he) jest of a soley a in this casé or Last surviving administnatgiy the Court must, in order to-eonstituté a ‘PépHéadutatdve to the sordginl doowsed, ake in all cases a grant 26 bonid ‘ton, “ONG chain’ fs representation is not continued ‘edit Yo’ Vié#e"a Ws SAN det: sueviid executor lies Leaving an exeduto® Wi8 provée his WiLMMaBtner Sankon, the cdminietratrix of the estate of Florence Paidsd fa BAY cotimbtlot to administer the effects of Ploxénéd ‘Kand#ay “aie abeomaetor hatte" ‘ Saitu Kamara, Fresh Administration Ishaulévnive ween locititssieHO of ? the goods of Koses Saidu Kamara not adninistered by-Florerce ‘Katara before her death, The reason’for this‘distinetiod vetweenpthe+' "§ situation where ¢ cole or last subviving ‘exeewtex died ‘Leaving can : cutor whe proves his.will and that where d sole on"last subviving jniudstrator dies i well explained by Blackstone in the 1st Edition of the 2na Volume of his Commentaries at Page 506.

“we Power of an executor is founded upon the special confidence: aul getual ayyointment of the deceased; and such executor is therefore alloued to transnit that power to another, in whom the deceased hag reponed no trust at all; and, therefore, on the death of that officér,

. in tesults buch to the ordinary to appoint another. And, with regand 4s tic Adwinictrater of A's executor he'hide clearly no privity or lie inturtate cucntor, and not of the oniginat pebbilin 2a “ik © Wai nol however, Within the competence of bie Beurt UeloW to seb iaei te; ~ sedor of the 15th December, 1988, gubstitubing girs Esther : , istratrix of the Estate of Florence Kamara,,-as’

v1

te) a aieabaticebi oa tee ee OeEE jules = oa pa 7) veplaintiet. inthe action. Tha Should have been left for revitw iy (© “pigner Gaur: “the appellant also contends that the neue) oink lea ane wrong in Lam in setting aside the Judgment dated +t t Pebwidry | \1990, “as that Was a final Judgment. This tourt acrocs gS ate he “appebtanec® bs Como inhis Court Having’ found that Esther Senkol wis not a competent ‘< " “Shersdnito me Teubstitited ror-the deceased, Florence Iamara, as ‘Administdtrsx"6r“the gState of woses Saidu Kamara, the gluintirr i “inthe Aetionj ‘the action commenced by Originating Summons, Supra, Ps abdted WHELEKE death of Plérence Kamara on tie 5ti doy of bay, 19U7. | eo GAY pidebdttingd arter that date are a nullity. Such prececiiace (Joven penadempne ‘odes “adtea“15tn December, 1988, and the tudguent Jused OS MBER ERBIinty, 11990! “BHe-reeorde wevest that at e-ot one alle-os “lo Penefleraky} “of fie estate of Moses saidu Kamuru, harie sawara, a4 «nO “knéWiedge OF the ‘proceedings in the court below. Succios 3) ' et E merenes of Estates Act. Cay. 45 of thy awe cu Lic »* Peon east BM ae tans Borming part of ths estate of an Intertoto siull Le Dingolimaadigg cectas seetee foe fhe E eae pftigial Administrator or any adainiste vse Without the consent of all persons benefici: lly interested, ' *" “or the order of the Court or Judge thereof for that purjone La” tipst ‘gbtainea." he words of Section 21

(1) Supra, are clear And unasit/ncas. ‘The cleimof Marie Kamara, alleged daughter of tle decessud om rt te : uibefhvestigated and determined. For the purpose of Aeteruinio. tis ' real question in controversy between all tle interested purtioe wie Court renits this case to the Court below to be rehuwd. It te + ordered. There shali be no order ue to conte. 7 Aen Banle hoe . : : in ae LiASetar— 5 ae gee a Fa % s f ‘