JA.AB (SL) LTD v PSG Shipping & Logistics (CIV APP 60/25) [2026] SLCA 11 (27 October 2026)

JA.AB (SL) LIMITED v PSG SHIPPING AND LOGISTICS LIMITED Civ. App. 60/25; [2026] SLCA 11 Court of Appeal of Sierra Leone 27 October 2026

Coram

Hon. Justice Reginald S. Fynn JA (Presiding), Hon. Justice Sulaiman A. Bah JA, Hon. Justice Samuel O. Taylor JA Ruling of the Court delivered by Sulaiman A. Bah JA; Samuel O. Taylor JA agreeing. Counsel: S. O. T. Fewry for the Appellant/Respondent; A. Kahunwa for the Respondent/Applicant

Facts

JA.AB (SL) Limited is the appellant in Civ. App. 60/25 before the Court of Appeal. The respondent, PSG Shipping and Logistics Limited, filed a Notice of Appeal in the Supreme Court dated 5 August 2026 and then moved the Court of Appeal by notice of motion dated 6 August 2026 for a stay of all further proceedings in Civ. App. 60/25 (including the filing of synopses and the hearing of the substantive appeal) pending the determination of its appeal to the Supreme Court. Counsel for the appellant/respondent raised a preliminary objection that the motion could not be moved because the leave of the Court of Appeal had not been sought and obtained under Rule 6(1)(c) of the Supreme Court Rules 1982 before the Notice of Appeal was filed in the Supreme Court, so the application was premature.

ISSUE Whether the leave of the Court of Appeal is required before an appeal lies to the Supreme Court from a ruling, judgment, decree or order of the Court of Appeal in a civil cause or matter.

Held

The preliminary objection was overruled. Under section 123(1)(a) of the Constitution of Sierra Leone 1991, an appeal lies from a judgment, decree or order of the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court as of right in any civil cause or matter; leave is required only in the criminal matters covered by section 123(1)(c). The Court followed its own decision in the John Obey Development Investment Co. Ltd case (24 May 1994) and the Supreme Court's decision in the Osman Sulaiman Mansaray case (1 August 2012), which it is bound to follow under sections 122(2) and 128(3) of the Constitution. Rule 6(1)(a) and (c) of the Supreme Court Rules 1982 is inconsistent with section 123(1)(a) and (c) of the Constitution and is void and of no effect by virtue of section 171(15).

Key Principles

1. An appeal from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court in a civil cause or matter lies as of right under section 123(1)(a) of the Constitution; no leave of the Court of Appeal is required.

2. The Supreme Court Rules 1982 are subsidiary to the Constitution. Rule 6(1)(a) and (c), so far as it requires leave in civil matters, is inconsistent with section 123 and is void under section 171(15).

3. The Court of Appeal is bound by decisions of the Supreme Court and by its own earlier decisions (sections 122(2) and 128(3) of the Constitution).

4. The Court noted that Rule 6(1)(a) and (c) requires review by the Rules of Court Committee because it does not mirror the current state of the law.

Why It Matters in Sierra Leone

The ruling restates that litigants in civil matters may appeal from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court without first obtaining leave, whatever the wording of Rule 6(1) of the Supreme Court Rules 1982, and flags that the Rule should be amended to match the 1991 Constitution.

Legislation Cited

Constitution of Sierra Leone 1991, sections 122(2), 123(1), 128(3), 171(15); Supreme Court Rules 1982 (Constitutional Instrument No. 1 of 1982), rules 5(1), 6(1)(a) and (c), 60(1).

Cases Cited

Sierra Leone Peoples Party (SLPP), Alhaji Usman N. S. Jah and Jacob Jusu Saffa v Dr Christiana Thorpe and National Electoral Commission; Rimmaalapudi Subba Rao v Noony Veeraju and Ors (22 March 1951, India); Misc App 1/2018 Moria Micver-Slowe v Habib Salman and Ekundayo Samuel Shaw; Misc App 2/2012 Osman Sulaiman Mansaray v Fatmata Kenny and Others (Supreme Court, 1 August 2012); John Obey Development Investment Co. Ltd v Africana Tokeh Village (Court of Appeal, 24 May 1994); Olafisoye v Federal Republic of Nigeria (2004) 4 NWLR (Pt. 864); Chief Dominic Onuorah Ifezue v Livinus Mbadugha & Anor (1984) JELR 4645.

Preliminary Objection to the Application

1. A preliminary objection was raised by Counsel for the appellant/respondent precluding the notice of motion dated the 6" day of August 2026 seeking a stay of proceedings, from being moved by the respondent/applicant on the basis that leave of the Court of Appeal was not sought and obtained before the filing of the Notice of Appeal dated the 5" day of August 2026 in the Supreme Court. And therefore, the instant application is

premature. The said motion is seeking the following orders:

1. That this Honourable Court grants an interim stay of all further proceedings in this matter, Civ App 60/25 including but not limited to the filing of synopsis of arguments by the [r]respondent/{a]pplicant, the hearing and determination of the substantive Appeal pending the hearing and determination of this application.

2. That this Honourable Court grants an interim stay of all further proceedings in this matter, Civ App 60/25 including but not limited to the filing of synopsis of arguments by the [r]respondent/[a]pplicant, the hearing and determination of the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone.”.

Submissions of Counsel

2. S OT Fewry of Counsel for the appellant/respondent commenced by submitting that the objection to the application seeking a stay of proceedings (based on a Notice of Appeal dated the 5" August 2026 and filed in the Supreme Court), should not be heard because leave to appeal was not sought and obtained from this Court before the said appeal was filed in the Supreme Court. In support of the submission, Counsel referred to Rules 5(1), 6(1)(c) of the Supreme Court Rules 1982 Constitutional Instrument No | of 1982 (hereinafter referred to as “the SCR 1982”), Further, Counsel submitted that the language in the aforementioned rules are clear and as such the intended appeal - a civil matter - falls within the category in paragraph.(c) of Rule 6(1), where leave of the Court of Appeal is required before the appeal can be; filed in the Supreme Court. The Court was also referred to the Supreme Court case titled the Sierra Leone Peoples Party - SLPP, Alhaji Usman N § Jah and Jacob Jusu Saffa vs Dr Chritiana Thorpe and National Electoral Commission and an Indian authority Rimmaalapudi Subba Rao vs Noony Veeraju And Ors 22 March 1951.

Also, Counsel submitted that the appeal is an interlocutory appeal since the decision appealed against did not determine the entire appeal. In support, Counsel referred the Court to the case of Misc App 1/2018 Moria, Micver-Slowe Vs Habib Salman and Ekundayo Samuel Shaw

Also, Counsel referred to Rule 60(1) SCR 1982 and submitted that the said rule presupposes the existence of an appeal in the Supreme Court before an application for a stay of proceedings may arise. He then submitted that in the present case where leave is required, the mere filing of a Notice of Appeal without first obtaining the requisite leave cannot constitute an appeal properly before the Supreme Court. The application must first satisfy the procedural requirement which is to seek leave from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court.

Finally, Counsel did submit that the applicant has come before this Court seeking a stay based on an appeal which require leave of the Court of appeal under Rule 6(1)(c), and yet no such leave has been granted before the said Notice of Appeal was filed. And therefore, Counsel prayed for the application to be dismissed or struck out on the basis that it is premature and misconceived, with costs.

In response to the objection, A Kahunwa of Counsel for the respondent/applicant submitted that no leave is required for appeals to the Supreme Court from rulings, judgments, decree or orders of the Court of Appeal in civil proceedings are as of ee In support Counsel referred to Section 123 (1)(a) of the Constitution of Sierra Leone [a few words are illegible in the scanned copy] (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Constitution’), and [authorities partly illegible in the scanned copy: Misc App 2/2012 — Osman Sulaiman Mansaray v Fatmata Kenny and Others] (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Osman Sulaiman Mansaray case’) and [the John Obey Development Investment Co. Ltd v Africana Tokeh Village case] (hereinafter referred to as ‘the John Obey Development Investment Co. Ltd case’), respectively. Thereafter, Counsel invited this Court to follow the decisions of both the Supreme Court and that of the Court of Appeal, pursuant to Sections 122(2) and 128(3) of the Constitution. Furthermore, Counsel submitted that the said section 123 of the Constitution made no distinction as to whether an appeal is interlocutory or final. She continued by submitting that the SCR 1982 cannot curtail a right granted by the constitution, because the SCR 1982 is a subsidiary legislation deriving its authority from the constitution. The Court was referred to Section 171(15) of the Constitution.

Finally. Counsel submitted that the words used in Section 123 (1)(a) of the Constitution are plain and unambiguous and require no outside help in the discovery of what it means. She referred to the Nigerian authorities of Olafisoye v. Federal Republic of

Nigeria (2004) 4 NWLR (PT.864) and Chief Dominic Onuorah Ifezue v. Livinus Mbadugha & Anor. (1984) JELR 4645

DELIBERATIONS

4. Counsel are at variance on the issue of whether the leave of this Court is required for an appeal to the Supreme Court from the rulings, judgments, decree or orders of this Court in a civil cause or matter. Counsel for the appellant/respondent has argued that leave of this Court is a must pursuant to Rule 6(1)(c) of the SCR 1982, which states:

“An appeal shall lie from a judgment, decree or order of the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court ... (c) with the leave of the Court of Appeal, in any other cause or matter, civil or criminal, where the Court of Appeal is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law or is of public importance”.

5. On the contrary, Counsel for the respondent/applicant canvassed that appeals to the Supreme Court from rulings, judgments, decree or orders of the Court of Appeal in civil proceedings are as of right, and no such leave is required pursuant to Section 123 (1)(a) of the Constitution, which states:

“(1) An appeal shall lie from a judgment, decree or order of the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court — (a) as of right, in any civil cause or matter; (b) ... (c) ... [the remainder of the quoted section 123 is partly illegible in the scanned copy] ... the Supreme Court shall have power to entertain any application for special leave to appeal in any cause or matter, civil or criminal, to the Supreme Court, and to grant such leave accordingly.” [Emphasis added].

6. This issue of whether an appeal shall lie from a judgment, decree or order of the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court as of right in any civil cause or matter was actually determined by our Courts long time ago. The earliest was by this Court on the 24" day of May,1994, some thirty-two (32) years ago in the John Obey Development Investment Co. Ltd case, where G Gelaga-King JA had this to say:

“(quite clearly ... [that] the right to appeal [to the Supreme Court Jrom the rulings, judgments, decree or orders of the Court of. Appeal in civil proceedings]

has changed under the 1991 Constitution. Now it is in a [certain] criminal

cause or matter that leave is needed and not in a civil matter. What is before

this Court is a civil matter and appeal to the Supreme Court is as of right.” [Emphasis added].

7. The court notes also that this Court had pointed out in the said John Obey Development Investment Co. Ltd case that the 1991 constitution came after and must have had in contemplation the SCR 1982 even as it provided for an appeal as of right in section 123

(1) (a) already referred to above and then made laws inconsistent with the constitution invalid,

8. Also, on the 1 day of August, 2012 our apex Court in the Osman Sulaiman Mansaray case determined that an appeal shall lie as of right when it opined that:

“Section 123(1)(c) of the Constitution makes provision for leave from the Court of Appeal to appeal to the Supreme Court but this is limited to [c

ertain] criminal matters, It is not applicable here, this case being a civil matter.”

Emphasis added

9. Unquestionably, this Court is bound to follow the decisions of the Supreme Court and

that of our earlier ruling by virtue of Sections 122(2) and 128(3) of the Constitution, respectively.

10. Undeniably, Rule 6(1)(a) and (c) of the SCR in its present form require review for it does not mirror the Current state of the law, it being inconsistent with Section 123(1 )(a) and (c) of the Constitution, Nonetheless, section 171(15) of the Constitution renders the said Rule 6(1)(a) and (c) void and of no effect, requiring the Rules of Court Committee to do the needful.

11. In the circumstance therefore. the preliminary objection is overruled.

HON. MR. JUSTICE SULAIMAN A. BAH, JA

I AGREE:

Signed:

HON. MR. JUSTICE SAMUEL O TAYLOR, JA;