Henneh Watfa v Alhaji S. Barrie (CIV APP 62 of 2005) [2008] SLCA 59 (20 July 2008)

JUDGEMENT | clv_APP. 62/2005 IN THE OURT OF APPEAL OF SIERRA LEONE BETWEEN: Henneh Watfa APPELLANT AND Alhaji Sanu Barrie - RESPONDENT

Coram

HON JUSTICE U.H. TEJAN-JALLOH - J.S.C. HON JUSTICE SALIMATU KOROMA - J.A. | HON JUSTICE A.N.B. STRONGE = -J.A. | HEARING DATE: —17™ APRIL, 2007.

Judgement

20™ JUNE, 2008.

ADVOCATES: BERTHAN MACAULAY (JNR), ESQ, FOR THE APPELLANT A.F. SERRY-KAMAL, ESQ, FOR THE RESPONDENT. |

DELIVERED ON 20™ DAY OF JUNE 2008. ]

TEJAN JALLOH, J.S.C. The present appellant was the defendant in the High Court where | he was sued by the present respondent for:~ . |

1. Recovery of possession of premises known as 18 Sani Abacha Street, Freetown. |

> Merve profs othe rete of US 200,000 pore . Tale Of US 200.090 per anamam from the I* emery 2002 until possession is yielded up. ee eee a 3, Interest there on at such rate as the court shall allow } The Defendan/Appellan fled defence and Counterclaim. Fer he parpones of his spel itivonly the Counterclaim that important. It isa claim for specitic pet ofan in 1998 to buy from the Plaintif/Respondent pan of S.CO.A. propery more particularly delineated on Survey Plan LS 2922/95 dated 29" of December, 1995, hereinafter referred 10 as the | property) initially at a price of US 100,000.00. (One Hundred Thousand US Dollars) The present | appeal is against this Counterclaim, which was dismissed on the 21% day of October 2008 by || Honourable Mr. Justice S.A. Ademosu, The DefendanAppellant being disstistied with the decision filed four grounds of appeal which are as follows: i

1. The learned trial Judge misdirected himself when he held inter alia as follows:- “The defendant (Appellant) relies p-incipally upon certain documents. They are Exhibits, E12 & E15, GH 1 & 3 and ef course the testimony of the Defendant in that the learned Trial Judge failed to consider or adequately consider Exhibits A \vritten by the Plaintifi's Solicitors dated 24° July, 2002, wherein the said Solicitors wrote to the Defendant requesting him to collect the sum of US 130,000.00 which | said sum included the US 120,000.00 being the agreed purchase price for the property, the subject matter of the Defendant's Counterclaim"

2. The learned Trial Judge misdirected himself when she held as follows: “The general principle of law is that ke who asserts must Prove ‘The onus is on the Defendant to prove that the signature in Exhibit L is that of the Plaintiff: This burden the Defendant did not discharge. Rather than discharging it I had been called upon to compare the signature of Exhibit L with other signatures on the Exhibit tendered before me..." having regard to the fact that the Defendant gave evidence during the course of the tral that he was familiar with the handwriting of the Plaintiff and that he had recived receipts Gncluding those tendered at the trial) signed by the Plaintiff and was therefore in @ position to and did compare the

lg vu signature ofthe PMointifT with that set Gti hit Lene omhim to prove thatthe saic signature on Exhibit - Secharging be ore Exhibit L wae tue of the Phainnitt The learned Trial Judge misdirected 3 ige mi himself when he held thet was net in dispute inter alia that:- “Tat since 25.2.1 when the Plaintiff offered to refund the Defentaet’s money him is a clear manifestation of the Plaimiff's disimeressednes i te ‘contract of sale” in that there was documentary evidenee before the Feared Tral Jntge i= the form of Exhibit E15, being a receipt in the sum of US60,000.00 repressing the atanee of the purchase price of US 120,000.00 dated the 20° of April 2001 and signed by the Plaintiff himself thereby failing o properly evaluate the evidence before hie 4, The Judgment of the Court, in respect of the Defendant's Counterclaim is against the weight of the evidence adduced ‘before the learned Trial Judge. wr Berthan Macaulay Junior for the Appellant argued grounds 2,3,1 and 4 wgeter He sew the Count’ atentin tothe judgment of te earned TH Judge at Page 80 line 26 where the teamed Trial Judge said: . “The Plaintiff's explanation about (1e 17860,000,00 received from the Defendant by bis sons that he said the Defendant demanded receipt which he gave tim and the cei seve of evidence WS in question was written by the Defendant's Seer {note that this age ee not denied by the Defendant. In my opinion, the said receipt is one which fer is ii oor Us 000,00 dt 25201 Ko using as his trump card, T now refer EXPN u which reads: “MB. Barrie the sum of Sixty Grantee to pay on beta F Umara and Thousand US Dollars US 60,000.00 Witness: Catherine Patnelli

t

. ot pay vw tha he PTFE Sori incomplete eae a _ ye te tri Judge as regards another receipt which i ExSibn 1S tr the wom of S| go0n ted 204 1 and the analysis of the Plaintiff's case as he perceived and evant | ne earned Trial Judge, Surther said as follows:- — | “ta my own opinion the endorsement atthe back of Exhibc E12 i» clear ican that | the Plaintiff offered 10 refund the money his two sors took from ue Defenstant © cammet | te taken as an endorsement of the sons’ plan to sel the property. 1 unk oem » | ove that there are certain facts tha are notin dispute in the ease | among them ares 1 The plaintiff went 10 Guinea after the 20 April, 1992 Comp denat amd finally returned to Sierra Leone in year 2000. 2 That whilst in Guinea he gave his two sons Umary Sar Barrie an Borbor Sams Barrie a Power of Attorney. ve | Exhibit D refers: } ‘is patenly clear that Plaintiff didnot clothe his sons with anchoriy wo sel Me property at 18, Sani Abacha Street formerly known as 18 Kissy Street, Freesown. That since 25.2.01 when Plainiff offered to refund the Defendant's money 1 him. this és clear manifestation of Plain’ disinterestedness im the pepored | ‘contract of sale. | i of the learned i veg Pa Bete 1 say that Counsel for the Appellant attacked these findings o “ | al i « ® ude and referred to the Exhibit L, which appears 10 be the main = on aa | A itis all is be hinges the claim for specific performance tssause He HE SS at “" } sri Prive should be increased to US 120,000.00, but the Jearmed Trial ive = se a iintif to the aut y 7 Kred this leter as well as the oral testimony of the Plaintiff Responstent as 1 : hii ; i cent strongly denied being the author o egg seeped with te fact that the Plaintift/Respon siden in Guinea ing Mée on Exhibit L dated 111.96, when the Plaintifi/Respondent 3 Sond ary ho ean read oF write, Bu ean onl Sag, ume that the Respondent is 29 iterate,» his ‘Signature,

> It

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