Gbassay Kamara v Sallay Wallace (MISC APP 2 of 1978) [1978] SLSC 5 (2 May 1978)

MISC.AUPL. 2/78 ce i

IN THe sUPRei COUNT OF SEAMRA 1LEOdh, H oe ! Eres ! GOASSAY Konaws - buPeND Ant /arPLac wre ' arb : | SALLY *ALLACE - PLAINPLER/WESVONDLWT eonanie= Saha Non. Hr. Justice O.i.R, TeJan - Justice of the ‘Supreme Court ‘Supreme Court £45. Johason Gen, Cor the Applicant bke Ay latlovay baa Cor Ue Kespondent ; RAUL SELCVJeD THIS 20 DAY OF HAY, 1978 H DLE, Cadet In this application for special lenve to, appeal to this Court, tir, 7.5. Johnson for the applicant, amongst other things, sought tie leave of thie Court to | amend his Hotion Paper by substituting the expression t "28th day of October, 1976" for the expression "21st day of Fovrunry, 1978" coutwined im Line 7 of the Notion-Paper on the groud thatsthe "21at day of Pebrunry, 17" was a typographical enters lie. Holloway on the ether hand objectad to the Appiteation on tvo growls, The First Le that the auend= ment applied for went to aubstonce, The second is that tne lotion itself is out af time since Lt was not brought witnin the required statu ory ported, Lot we here and now disrose of the second grown, i hulo 10 of the Supreme Yourt itules 1976 (alle Hod of 1976) states ns follows: tan appiiention fer special, leva shat be flied within one month oF thw date of the Jwignont from whieh Leave to sppent ts sought | or of the date un which leave to appeal to | suo suupeomn fourt 4 refused by the Court os. tee LE

-2- ns~ Court of Appeus,

According to Section 4(1) of tho Interpretation Act WTI (Act Hos © oF 1971) “month” monna a Cotenuar month,

Nule 1 of the Suprume Court Mules 1976 wise gives Whe same Horinttion to the word "month",

According to the AfridavLt Fited tn support of the Notion, whiten hex not oon ehntlenged, the Court of Anpeat J U8 Wuting miven on the 2198 day of Pobruasy 1978, PeCused Loove Lo onpont to the Suprome Court nynknst the Jadgwent of Lint Court dated the 208h day of Ostover 1976. The question now ariaes = did the applicant make lis appt thon for apectat Lonve to nypeat to thks Court within a month after tho rofusnt of teave by the Court of Appent? Hero Lt should be noted that the Hotton Paper 4s dated, am woe 410d omy the Tet Hnveh 1978, “This question turns on what Cod andar wonth monne,

tho authorities senm to entnbltsh thaé An considers hat 19 the ongth of @ Cylon wonth 1 Ls auetiosent whan the onthe are broken, wintaver be the Length of eith to go from ene dey in one mouth fo tho corresponding aay Iu the other month = Seo *FUAIAN Vs, NEAD = 1869, 32 Ld. 226, RADIANS Ve MARTIALONA 1091-1094 Att, Reprint page 6291 | *GULDSNLUL CO, VS, MEST MLEKOFOLA EAN RAKL¥AY, 190H 1 Katey 1 8E 1Hge SE AM the Intte ense whore ali the authorition ware esinustively reviewed by the tngllsh Com of Appenl.

1 nhara the viow int where @ period of tine from or after a given date or event 4s prescribed ns the perted Luin viioh an act Le to “e douey the day of thnt uote oe event 12 o be excluded in tha commutation of the verted nud the act Le te be done on or before the inet dry of the period, This seems to be the view shared by our Lecielaty when it stated tn Section 39 (1)(n) of the Interpretation Act 197! (Act No, & of 1971) as Follows:

"(1) An computing Lime for the puryesee of any Act =

ese -3- 1% i (a) a pertod reckoned by days from the happening of an event or the doing of any act or Using shall be doowed to Ue exclusive of the day on which the ovont happens or the act or thing Ls done: .

X onven that the expression used in that sub= nection reads "a period reckoned by days"; but would construe that oxpression to noan “within a specified period", Toking alt the civewmstonees into consideration 1 om of the opinion the this Notion was filed within a month oF the date on uhich the Court of Appeal refused Leave to sppeol, tnt ia, 21et Fabivary, 1978, yhich +49 an exeluled day. 1 would thorefore overrule Hrs Inllowoy's objection on this point, i

With regard to tho other point of objection, T think ebis Court enn property dent with 1 witha the Ambit of Rute 5(2) of the Supreme Court Ktules 1976 which stotes aa Col Lorsi~

(2) ‘thove no provistow te oxpressiy made by Unese Mules regarding the practice and procedure which shal) apply to any appeat or appitention bofore the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court slintt proserine uy moans of practice directions ach prsetice and procedure pe in the opinion of the Supreme Court tho Justices of the appeal or apttieation may routes tn tho opinton ef this Court X vould 1ike 1 to he etnted re a practice dircotion that thie Court hae wer within tho aabit of Rute 5(2) of the Suprewe Court ues 1976 to consider applications For amendnont and ail the eireunstsncns of this cnge into consideration T | [a Wn ceeeeees |

Pei heen Hig! Bie: Ma : Bi -4e 5 “ip Be ' P Hes Grant the amendment sought since the evidence 4n ! ae of; the. Notion shows clearly that the expression i PRES PR acrh et feagnses Buk i. Poon aid a” Bs Ailey of February 1978" instead of "28th dayioe HERE is a tober, . i Gye ue aca Eptober, 1976" was inserted in the Motion Paper in error, : i pie auenduent, however, is being granted on terms as if Ho costs, Hy es | : if C.0,8, Cole om | Gat a

\ if ¥ . N aa $ Ye rs if ; I agree Peeeereeer irs Lerretrerrer res mi : 0.1. Tejan - Justice of the a Supreme Court : I agree cot ats Onnntncietsvihers 2) ‘Bs Ay V. swunor-Remer ~ Justice of RG the Suprene Court a ae i ie FER, aoe

Ke ae i

ae

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