Gbassay Kamara v Sallay Wallace (MISC APP 2 of 1978) [1978] SLSC 2 (2 May 1978)

Bs a ) 2 ; WISc. APPL. 2/78 ii ‘a Sas SURE, COURT OF 3 bsldth 1n0rly ! if a \ ‘ De Mianils ! x ie GUASSAY KAMARA 7 DLPENDSUT/ APPLICANT 18 ARD : i i SALLY WALLACE - PLAINT LEP /RESPONDENT | fy i a CORAM = oot a Hon. Hr. Justice C.0.8, Cole - Chief Justice ; é y lon. Hrs Justice O.0.R. Tejan - Justice of the Supreme Court : a? lon, Justice Mrs. 4, Awunor-Renner - Justice of the |! 4 : Supreme Court “' | f.5, Johuson #eq. Cor the Applicant ] ke A, Halloway Lsq. Cor Le Respondent i : j RULING VELL: RED THIS 2ND_VAY OF HAY 1978 i 1 CuLe, U.d.t= In this application for spec ial leave to : | appeal to this Court, Hr, 1.5, Johnson for the applicant, ? amongst other things, sought the leave of this Court to i , amend his Hotion Paper by substituting the expression we ml "28th day of Octuber, 1976" for the expression "21st day ‘ 7. of February, 1978" contained in line 7 of the Motion:Paper 4 on the ground that.the "21st day ef February, W7E" was a : i typonraphical error. ‘ 7 | ‘ q | Me, Halloway on the other hand objected to the : f application on two grounds. The first is that the awend- ‘ i ment applied for went to substance, The second is that q Lhe totion itself is out of time since it was not brought a j - within the required stvtu ory period, i Let we here and now dispose of the second ground, ‘ i | | i Rule 10 of the Supreme Court Hules 1976 (P.H. Nod i i | of 1976) states as followst- 4 | “An application fer special leave shall i +. | be filed within one month of the date of the i i judgment Crom which leave to appeal is sought | ' or of the date on which leave to appeal to { U fount te refused by the Court ofes i

bi is Be tt Ee ¥ ee Court of Appenl, a . According to Section 4(1) of the Interpretation Act 4 | 1971 (Act No, 8 of 1971) “month” means a Calendar month, ie i Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 1976 alse gives = i | Lhe same definition to the word "month", 4 i According to the Affidavit filed in support of the z i: } Notion, which hes not been challenged, the Court of Appeal 4 : in its Quling given on the 2ist day of February 1978, F relused Isave to oppeal to the Supreme Court against the TH | judgment of that Court dated the 28th day of October 1976.

4 i The question now arises - did the applicant make his applic ‘ i tion for special leave to appeal to this Court within a a month after the refusal of leave by the Court of Appeal? ig Here it should be noted that the Motion Paper is dated, anc 1h was filed on, the 21st March 1978, ‘This question turns on : 4 vhat Calendar mouth means, | The authorities seem to establish that in considerir : a : what is the length of a Calendar month it is sufficient 4 4 | when the months are broken, whatever be the length of eithe Z a ; to go from one doy in one month to the corresponding day i | in the other month - See "FlbutAN Vi, KEAD - 1863, 32 L.Jh | ‘ 226; RADSLIFFe Vy. BARTHALOMEN 1891-1894 4,0.R, Reprint : 4 i page 829: "GULDSHLUL CO, VS. WEST METROPOLITAN RAILWAY, i i 1904 1 Kk.U., 1 at page 5; in the latter case where all the a y aulhorilies were exhaustively reviewed by the tnglish Court : ‘ of Appeal. \ : Xo share the view that where a period of time from or alter a given date or event is ee as the period . : within which an act is to -e done, the day of that date or r | . event is to be excluded in the computation of the period | aud the act is to be done on or before the last dey of the | period, This scems to be the view shared by our Lecislaturt | when it stated in sectiou 39 (1)(a) of the Interpretation NS | Act 1971 (Act Ho. 8 of 1971) as follows: "(1) In computing time for the purposes of any Act ~

y ot | ~ : ! (a) a period reckoned by days from the \" i ; happening of an event or the doing of any act | vt or thing shall be deemed to be exclusive of ia the day on whieh the event happens or the : 4 act or thing is done:" ; 4 agree that the expression used in that subsection reads “a period reckoned by days"; but L would I construe that expression to mean "within a specified } ‘ period", Taking all the cireumstances into consideratlon iZ Lam of the opinion that this Notion was filed within a Fi month of the date on whieh the Court of Appeal refused a Leave to appeal, that is, 2ist February, 1978, yhieh 4 -is an excluded day, 1 would therefore overrule Hr. iq Halloway's objection on this point. 4 With regard Lo the other point of objection, T B think this Court ean properly deal with it within the 4 ambit of Rule 5(2) of the Supreme Court kules 1976 which # af states as follows t :

(2) Mhere no provision is expressly made by these Jules regarding the practice and procedure which shall apply to any appeal or Application before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court sliall prescribe by means of praclice dixeekions such prectice and procedure as in the opinion of the Supreme Court the : justice of the appeal or application way requires . ° In the opinion of this Court I would like st to z be stvted ss a practice direction that this Court has aj pover within the ambit of Rule 5(2) of the Supreme Court Rules 1976 to consider applications for amendment and evant same if the justice vf the case so requires, Taking \ ALL the cireumstineas of this case into consideration I | x a

b bP AS fi toa ar E ees =f ea ee assncus q esac Bes Ee eee Bi -4e i Pa g3, BB ascot ess scp “ ay Ree Bd grant the amendment sought since the evidence in i Ie Keane ane Bi peal Rusa Riioont of. the Motion shows clearly that the expression Ba Seren ret atec ROMHMES (3 eh a $ 4 eo | 1 ARAEIA Tau pass : BM ekiiday of February 1978" instead of “28th day..of.‘ PORMRERR i usneat ous Bai: 13 ee ee | ; i ; (SSSA Hietober, 1976" yas inserted in the Motion Paper in error. i ‘as ES ii ee rane his amenduent, however, is being granted on ter Ss BL: soye Unteesie qe costs. ates } 8 Cte Hitomi : : ane | ee Raa ee Pen | TERS Reena B C.0,8, Cole Wes cute sro 7 Gods Fei lekpeteoner ts ’ tieairelvane y Eee ei yh E | ERS aioe ee y ‘ ~ | RR Bees ie Ly \ Leo eae) apis I acree Gia diteiie vee's fos AGaae yy His ahaa 4 0.B.R. Tejan - Justice of the iach ett BY Supreme Court ‘ Bichon epee E | RR epi ceate a . ee: ; 3 ' Pies Oe ted 4 Cae ME: x agree iD eOie scntentcl / aie wee ‘ a A. Y. swunor-Renmer — Justice of ROR tte HY Rakai tacnllarte at id the Supreme Court fae eee | E Bi: ae Ss EE Bre aang at RSH SECS i Sn PG Sa i pe a 4 BD eeenen 5 A POE See Ley Pehappta q te a. Re vuth taitegeates q is Geen : be eae 4 res Pe ; Pe 4 ais a 4 Socks i} p Sos Races F: poravige Sethe es 4 a Sere ee j ee x Ei, 3 | Behe Baigeneane F Fee 4 a ae fsa Rene E + GRRE NagindaNecsss Ee Beatie oe EF Je eee CoN Neca