Hassani Ibrahim & Zainabu Ibrahim v High Tech International School (CIV APP 24 of 2015) [2020] SLCA 33 (30 July 2020)

CIV.APP, 24/2015 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SIERRA LEONE BETWEEN: » HASSANI IBRAHIM & é ‘APPELLANTS ZAINABU IBRAHIM 1 CANNON STREET FREETOWN AND HIGH TECH INTL SCHOOL - RESPONDENTS REV. RICHARDS KOROMA 72 UPPER PHILIP STREET WELLINGTON FREETOWN REPRESENTATION: YADA WILLIAMS & ASSOCIATES 7 WALPOLE STREET FREETOWN SOLICITORS FOR APPELLANTS. C.F, EDWARDS ESQ., PRESTON SHAMBERS 98 FOURAH BAY ROAD FREETOWN SOI ICTTOR FOR THE RESPONDENTS. sopth JUDGMENT DELIVERED THIS SU payor Ju\S 2020,

—IFoa

Introduction and Background

« “The Plaintffs/Appellants in this matter HASSANT IBRAHIM and ZAINAB IBRAHIM of No. 1 Canton Street, Freetown issued a Writ of Summons for possession before the High Court in Freetown. The suit for possession was brought by their solicitors firm called YADA WILLIAMS & ASSOCIATES. The suit was issued against the Defendants/Respondents High Tech International Schoo! and one Reverend Richard S. Koroma dated 25” day of November, 2014. It was for the recovery of (1) _ Premises situate at Philip Street, Wellington Freetown.

(2) Mesne profits at the rate of Le 400,000.00 per month from the 1* of October,

2014 till delivery of possession

(3) Interest

(4) Costs On the 28” day of November, 2014, the Defendants/Respondents through their solicitors C.F. Edwards Esq., entered an appearance for the Defendants/Respondents in that regard. On the 1% of December, 2014 solicitor C.F. Edwards filed in a defence on their behalf challenging the action. On the 9” day of November, 2014 Plaintiffs/Appeliants solicitor’ filed in a Judges Summons before the High Court against the Defendants/Respondents for summary judgment in accordance with order 16 rule 1 of the High Court Rules 2007. The summons was filed on the grounds that the Defendants/Respondents are their tenants and has no defence to the action. The said summons was supported by the Affidavit (joint) of the Plaintiffs/Appellants HASSANI IBRAHIM and ZAINAB IBRAHIM together with exhibits attached. The affidavit contained 17 paragraphs & exhibits, Exhibit"A” - a copy of the writ of summons Exhibit"B” - a copy of a conveyance as document of title of HASSANI and ZAINABU IBRAHIM being owners of the said prope-ty at Philip a Street, Wellington Freetown presently occupied by the Defendants/Respondents dated 27" September, 2014.

* Exhibit"C’ - a copy of the Notice to quit served on the Defendants/Respondents dated 27 September, 2014. a, Exhibit"D" - a copy of a tenancy agreement between the Plaintiffs/Apnellants and Defendants/Respondents symbolizing their status as landlords is of the said premises and land at Philip Street, Wellington. The tenancy was for one year certain which was registered at Registrar-General’s office at Roxy Building, Freetown. Exhibit"E” - letter of reminder to the Defendants/Appellants of the expiration of their tenancy. Exhibit "F” and “G” — A Memorandum and Notice of Appearance and Defence to the action Apparently the Plaintiffs/Appellant were positively canvassing that they are not only landlords to the Defendants/Respondents but owners of all the land and premises ‘occupied by the Defendants/Appeliants High Tech International School and Rev. Richard Koroma. Contrary to the Plaintiffs/Respondents case, C.F. Edwards sq., filed in an affidavit in opposition on behalf of Defendants/Respondents. The said affidavit was dated 9" day of January, 2015. This affidavit was sworn to by C.F. Cdwards Csq., himself on instructions from his clients HIGH TECH. INTERNATIONAL & REV. RICHARD KOROMA. There were 9 paragraphs in the said affidavit with one exhibit marked CFF. This was a copy of a conveyance as property of one MANESSAH BALOGUN DAVIES (Deceased) dated 18” day of August, 1970. ‘According to the instructions from his clients he deposed that his clients were not put in ‘occupation by HASSANI and ZAINABU IBRAHIM as they are asserting and had been in occupation of the said premises or property two years before signing the one year tenancy agreement with them. That even the said agreement was signed by them under duress. So in essence they were disputing their claim as landlords in respect of the said property. ‘On Monday the 12" of March, 2012 the application came before D.G. Thompson, J in the High Court for hearing. The matter was then heard together with all the arguments ‘on both sides. On Wednesday 25" February, 2015, D.G. Thompson, J ruled on the application refusing the application for possession and ordered for the matter to x proceed on trial. According to him the triable issues were raised by the Defence which deserves to be tested in a full scale trial with witnesses and others relevant documents,

— M2- ‘The Plaintiff/Appellants being dissatisfied with the decision now appealed the judgment 2 before this court which is the Court of Appeal consisting of three Justices of appeal.

Grounds of Appeal

The grounds of appeal filed by the Plaintiffs/Appeliants was: dated the 6” day of May, ms 2015, they were listed as follows:-

1. That the Learned Judge was wrong in fact and in law to have ordered a full trial of the matter having concluded that "The Court agrees with Counsel for the Plaintiffs/Appeliants that a tenant is not at liberty to dispute the title of the landlord and the authorities to substantiate his submission”. PARTICULARS: ‘That the only defence raised by the Respondents in para 1 - 3. of the Defence dated 1® December, 2014 and para. 3-5 of the affidavit sworn to on the 9” day of January, 2015, about the landlord of the Respondents was that the learned trial Judge was wrong in fact and in law to have ordered trial when there was no triable issue raised in the Defence of the Respondents dated 11" December, 2014 and para, 3-5 of the affidavit sworn to on the 9" day of January, 2015.

3. That the learned trial Judge was wrong in fact and in law when he concluded that - “It is possible that the two lands are separate and distinct or their might be an overlap ‘on one land into another land. Even though the matter is not one for declaration of title but all the same it is imperative that the two lands are demarcated and distinguished properly before a proper, just and equitable decision could be given". PARTICULARS: That the Court having held that the matter before it, is not one dealing with a declaration of title and having further held that a tenant is not at liberty to dispute the title of the land lord and considering that the identity of the land is not an issue in dispute according to the pleadings of the parties, the learned Judge's conclusion cannot be said to be correct in the circumstances given.

4. That the decision of the trial judge is against the weight of evidence

5. That the judgment was given per incunatn, Reliefs sought from the Court of appeal i. That the ruling dated the 25" day of February, 2015 refusing summary % judgment be set aside. ii. That judgment be entered for the Appellants for

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