J.A.K Williams v Dr. Abass C. Bundu (MISC APP 30/2024) [2025] SLCA 5 (7 July 2025)

» nu count or atta orsienea LEON sax wuts = grreuuawvarmcast pic ames HHRNORDUNDU = RESPONDENTMESPOSDENT conan sow seri subammn epian sao von seamen as stvensen course

a. RULING DELIVERED ON THE 4 DAY OF JULY 2025.

1. By a Notice of Motion dated the 11" day of February 2025. the appellanVapplicant ‘High Court made on the 5" day of March 2024 pending the hearing and determination made on the 5® March 2024 pending the hearing and determination of this Application ‘on the 11 day of February 2025, together with the exhibits attached thereto.

far | ae . AW * (O20. bine ae, cca

JONS OF COUNSEL FOR THE API

3. MP Fofanah Esq, of Counsel forthe appellanvapplicant, commenced by relying on the entirety of the affidavit and more particularly paragraphs 4 ~ 8, which is set out as follows:

“4. That Lato filed an Applicaton to stay the said Judgment before the trial Judge, but

the Appltcatin for stay was recently refused withou further notice to me or my Solicitor,

True copy ofthe said Application and the Onder refusing stay are Exhibited as “D & 5".

That long before the commencement ofthis matter, I had rented out my house on the disputed land to tenants, [twas only lotr in 2007 tat the Respondent approached me (and claimed the land a his. The tenants in the said house have been there since, and itil hus cause them grave hardship ifthe are tobe suddenly evited from the howe

6 That in my case as well, am a pensioner who ony rely on the proceeds ofthe above rents to survive. Ihave fail to care fr andi will similarly cause me serious or ‘grave hardship if Tam to give up possession of my said house, Bull frm my Bona ide earnings as a civil servant. Tiss particulary so as verily believe that Ihave a good! ‘and meritorious appeal against the above Judgment ablained against me. My Incomellifeearing’s wore mostly invested in the construction and completion of the suid property.

7. Inparicular, ona balance of convenience, [verily believe that even ifmy std Appeal ‘as (0 fil, whichis unlitly, the land and house in issue will nt dissipate or demecn in ylue twill alsa be availble for any execution 1o be levied omit bythe Court

8. That Iam informed by my Solictor thar the Respondent and his Solicitor are in the process of obiaining an Onder to passess and throw ou my tenants from the property “forming the subject ofthis Appel. I verily believe that these are special circumstance {fo warrant this honourable Court to grant asta of Execution n my favour.”

4. Counsel referred to exhibit C attached tothe affidavit in support and submitted thatthe grounds of appeal in the said Notice of Appeal are prima facie good grounds and meritorious against the respondent. Ie further submited thatthe affidavit in support discloses special circumstances and unless this Court stays the judgment ofthe lower Court, the respondent and his solicitor wil execute the judgrnent thereby causing severe hardship to his family and tenants, support of his submissions, he relied on Mise App 7/2003 Alhaji Abdul Wahid AND Fatmata Floode & others (hereinafter referred to 1s “The Alhaji Abdul Wahid’s ease”); Misc App 22/2004 Desmond Luke AND Bank of Sierra Leone; and, Mise App App 102004 Domaine De Baw Baw AND Mohamed Kamel Wanza.

gSey,,

fm \ O sg — ? j cs a eorsTKt,

SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

5. In opposing the application, S M Sesay Esq. ‘of Counsel for the respondent, relied on ‘an affidavit in opposition sworn to by Dr Abbass Chemor Bundu, on the 10* of March 2025, in its enirey. Further, Counsel submitted thatthe grounds of appeal in exhibit , are not good grounds of appeal and they lack any prospect of success. He also Submited thatthe applicant has filed to show special circumstances and therefore the pplication mus fil In suppor of his submissions, Counse refered the Court to Mise ‘App 1693 § M Saccoh AND Ibrahim Daklaln & Sons; Mise App 25/93 Rev ‘Archibald Gambala John AND Abu Black and Otbers; Mise App 10/2004 Domaine De Baw Baw AND Mobamed Kamel Wanza; and ‘The Alhaji Abdul Wahid’s case. SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL, FOR THE APPELLANT/APPLICANT IN REPLY |

6. MP Fofanah Esq, of Counsel for the appellanvapplicant referred to and relied on the affidavit in reply ofthe said Joseph Anthony Kay Williams swor to on the 14% day of March 2025, He submited that ground 1 ofthe notice of appeal is complaint, that the Ueaed Trial Judge (hereinafter LT) ered in law by reaching 2 conclusion based on 1 ieous in quo report and te testimony of PW2 Erie Forster, which said conclusion, is ax variance ith te fct and findings found al page 27 ofthe hand writen judgment tthe L,I that regard he submitted the ground isa prima facie good and substantial (ground of wppel. In support, he refered the Court to exhibit C~ the notice of appealnd to paragraph 2 of the aidavit in epy, which sate in part never acceded to trespasing or encroaching onthe Plaintiff Respondent's and as claimed by him. tn any ease, Lm informed by my Solicitor that these issues are in fact now the ert and substance of my Appeal. considering that the Plainiff's Surveyor, Mr. Forster, had himself confirmed in his Repor and tesrmony tothe High Court, which the Learned Trial Judge alluded 1 in his findings and conclusion to his Judgement, that the land that Thad “irespassed, treroached and buili my house upon”. acording fo them, was NOT the land stained by the plaintffResponden! herein, bu the land of his predecessorinfie M.A. Vincent Tis was confirmed both n Mr. Forster's re-surey Report ‘and his testimonies at the High Court (ie cross-examination and reseeminationy as found at page 25 ofthe Trial Judge's handwritten Judgment” 1, In conclusion, Counsel submited his lint never thought of disposing or sling the rari question bu rather itis the respondent who is keen in selling the propery afer execution ISSUES AND FINDINGS 8. ‘The issues for consideration inthis aplication, ae: () whether the grounds of appeal are prima facie good and substantial grounds? and. (i) whether there are special Groumstances warranting a slay ofthe execution ofthe judgment and orders the High Court dated the 5! day of March 2024? Brvoran Pw 3 aim Ee a

rm iy en Bank of Sierra Leone; Misc App App 10/2004 Domaine De Baw Baw AND

10. In considering whether the grounds of appeal are prima facie good and ‘substantial in. “NGROUNDS OF APPEAL:

7. That the Letter Trial Judge erred in fact and law respectively in reaching the conclusion below in his Final Judgment aforesaid: ‘That at page 38 of his Handwritten Judgment, the Learned Judge held that (») ILisalso clear from the locus in quo Report and the testimony of PW2, the Plaintiff succeeds against the I Defendant, Mr. Jack (sic) Williams but fails in his claim against the 2" Defendant, Mr. Azziz Carew on a balance of probabilities”, (Emphasis added)

Judgment

i At.page 27 of his Hancheritten Judgment, the judge found thet “Under which is between Dr. Abass Bundy and J. A. K. Williams. The vacant ‘Plot is now occupied by Jaseph A. K. Williams, When he went to do the ices i cn stated (that) the vacant land belongs to A. Vincent Mr. A Vincent is the vendor to Dr, Abass Bundu (...)". (Emphasis added) Gam \ aviv & wi

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