George B.Cole v Sahr Mendekia (CIV APP 2 of 1973) [1974] SLSC 4 (29 October 1974)

‘4 2H WE suPwene COURT OF $i JRA 1.HOUE 24 4 Ges veAPP2AR } BETWEEN: fy « OWIRGI: BERK ‘SFORD COLE = APPELLANT : | fs , SaHR HENDEKIA = RESPONDEIY : hee ee] CORAM: . i Hon Hr Justice SC W Betts ~ JSC, (Presiding) 3 H A Acting Chief Justice i bs a1. Hon Hr Justice B Livesey=Luko.= 180 4 i ae fon Mr Justice NE Bromne-varke = J8¢ ; to ay Hon Mea Justice AV A AwunorRenner ~ JA ie eee i Hy ' dh el Dr W A Marcus-Jones for the Appellent ! by aa 6 Gelage-King Esq for the Respondent : ins che sown paaven wins 2-1 Bre o» Oddo i ae sk hers ne On tho 15bii Ootober, 1970, the Flaintirt, Suhr Mendokia, — — Ue Ghee eaten tas erates tapas tnt oeeen);icaies lo Weave gy ae |. of Summons sccoAyantod ty « Statonont of Cain against Gaoree -f k i Gee beveatora Coto, (sion I shall shores nafter rofer to «a the + Me ee rppettant), for iroach of « written contract dated 3nd Decenber, i ij } GE. 1980. Tho written contract provided, inter alia, thet the i fooch ae Appellant would construct atwo-storeyed building of four-self : hi 5 apes contained flats for the sun of le2h,000 (twenty-four thousand fF rE sel Jeones) within a maximum period of six (6) months, that™Ls to say, q eae by June, 1969. The Respondent paid the Appellant an advance of if it ie 1et,000 (fourteor thoussrid leones), and agreed to pay the . | Bee balance on or before the 28th of Fobruary, 1969. As a matter of fees. fact, the balance of 10,000 (ten thousand loones) was paid on || Ih Bed the 16th Decombor, 1968. After the expiration of the time for .:f: ab a the performance of the contract, the Appellant, according to the ae. Respondent's evidence, asked for one’ more month to complete the 4 I 1 é building, that 4s to say, in July, 1969. The Respondent said ho ' " iy Hass E j Pepe «ee oe

I : I. \ accepted. ‘ho building howver wns sti12 sneonplete at the end 4 : 4 of July, 1969. We Litigation started by a Writ of Summons which was filed rs (y ‘ on the 13th OctoLer, 1970, followed by a Statement of Claim. . = The Appellant filed a Statement of Defence and counter-claim . on the 28th April, 1971. By leave of the Court, an amended P November, 1971. The Respondent cliimed damages - general and x = apectel . for broach of contract. ‘he action was tried by Ken. fh q During, J, (as ho then was) who gove judgment on the 10th April, | ei = 1972, dlantesing both the Respondeut's claim and the Appellent's f | 4 counter-clain. ‘The Respondent appealed againat that judgment “Yr eg: ‘ana the Court of Appeal (Perey R lavies, JA, 0B R Tojan, JA de , B | - ana Rowand Harding, J,), allowed tho appeal orf the 14th July, de 4 z 1973, and ordered the Appellant t» pay the Respondent 114,085 |e 4 E s(fourteen thousind and ‘eighty-five Leones) as goneral damages; i td é 12500. (five hundied leones) aa opo:sisl danages and costs of the | is a ‘action in the’High Court and the vourt of Appeal... ie | Tho present appeal ts akeinst the Judgment of the Court of We i j Appeal and the following issues wre raised: 1 He a (a) “Was the Appellant a grotuitous Agent of the ie | 4] Norpondent? Ile | (b) Was Exhibit 'BY a contract or a receipt? fat (c) Te 4t was a contract, was thore a breach of 4t? tie é (a) Vas the Respondent ontitied to the danages he He : was iivarded or to any damages at all? ool hee | 4 re win be veorul at thie stage to set out many ‘oh an 8 ATH a relates significantly to the answers to be given to the save ca | H EWHEBIT' ‘ot ; : ig f . RECELVED "HE SUM OF tc1,000 (FOURTEEN THOUSAND LEONES) if : ~ PROM AMI LUhBIK MENDEKIA, SQ, FARMER of 27 Yerada 29171 4° ij Fond, Koidu Yown, Kono District, in the Baste¥it Prov j'| ince of Siorra Leone, bein: part payment of the dim ai | B

os i Ze = i the costs of construction of » TWO-STORYED i bl BUILDING with BOYS' QUAItIcKSs AUD CAR PUI on li 71,907 acre of Luni situated off Kissy bye lass .- Road, Kissy Villove ua more fully doseribea and Fi] { delinoated on tho Director of Surveys and Lands “he Plan 18 1070/68 dated 20th November, 1968 to be f i built and constructed with the best labour and ae materials available within a maximum period of ie | (6) six calendar months from the date hereon; a the said structures to contain the following:~ e TWO-STOREYED BUILDING: ©}, (WOWI) SELPcouTAY MED i aes | a SA LAL SACI MAGE 's Ej ‘ L: GROUND OOK: No 1 = Lounge Cum aininy room ig Two bedréoms. One bub? and water (a oset. vey: Estimated Unit cost ldh,100.00 te fej: Plat No 2 - Lownje cum dining room ie 4 three bedroons F i Ono bath and water closet. Kitchen fi Batimated Unit vost - 46,600.00. ee FIRST FLOOR:-.. Piat Wo 3 - LOUNGE CUM DINING ROOM [i “Sto bedrooms us of bite One bath arid water closet. Kitchen { fa Estimated unit, ost - la},400.00 : | | Da a FLAT NO bt loungo cue ini. oon, Uhnee bedrooms } i; one buth and witer closet. Kitchen Ate Kstimated unit cost: ~ l6,000.00 a ie | "BOYS! QUAROENS AND CAR POW: ‘owS* quARTERS:. A a4 ‘vo Vedroons One water closet and Shower ye es VAR FORT: ‘Covered econnodation for pe ie four curs | ; a Natimated.unit cost: - 1e2,200.00 nit oss Hee | Nixigencies = 800.00 itt ae vorAL cost 1i2ly,000.00 ‘4 % j j 1, Sehr Lebbie Mondokia aforesnid for myself my heirs and | i : ie {IR | - . Successors in titte do hereby contrnet and agroo with my agent, i ® i, | Georgo Beresford Uolu, Roul Estate Agent, of 23 liverpool | | io a Peagh «| Wee 1, iene ec

i ut : 23 ; } -he J on it ! Street, Freotow:, Sierra Leone, t+ pay to him the balance of i = 110,000.00 (ten thousand loonoa) in full on or before the “y i 20th Februnry, 196), for the Lulfilment of tho purposes herda Ainbefore contained. Datod in Yreotown this 3rd day of December, 1960. t | (sg4) George Borestord Cole | Real Estate Agent Head over and fully explained 4 to Schr Lebbie Hendekia by ; KAI MOSSAY Mo 27 Yaradu Road, i { Koidu, TRADER. When he, Shar Lel.bie K Mendokia seened porfectly to wnderetand = |. the same before inseribing his murk and/ z aq . or thumbprint hereon. 7 (sea) Kot P c a “ Sahr tobbie Mendekia,

Having sot- out Exibit 16's propose Lu construe it. to | q determine whether its intention wus to appoint the Appellant i — as an agont or to croate an“ayon:y. If one or the other. kind FE i ff: tna sonstsussagnsr tia etek a bin’ ena of, the mabbery4n | regard to the agent or agency excluding other incidents. #4 But 4f not, Exhibit 'C' will be subject to further construc- [ tion to determine if it is a contract or a receipt. It is * 3)! ff : eageptea that the word ‘agent! 19 cdpanie of boing uifit tna E number of ways and in these proceedings it was sought té use i” 4] JS | it by the Appellant's counsel as a ‘conduit pipe! merely to § effect tho tronsportation of the terms of agreement between | Ss the Respondent and some other third party. Halsbury's 3rd ¥ Eaition, Voluno I at page 16 and paragraph 351, states that -") H fan agent has Leon defined as a "horson primarily employed for : tho purpose of plasing tho prineipal in contractual or other i | Seed a

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