John Obey Development Investment Co Ltd v Africana Tokeh Village Limited (MISC APP 15 of 1994) [1994] SLCA 7 (14 July 1994)

SS the | : the. { i b 9

Misc. App. No, 15/94 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SIERRA LEONE

‘BETWEEN: JOHN OBEY DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT COLTD - APPLICANTS AND 1 lt . . . | AFRICANA TOKEH VILLAGE LIMITED - RESPONDENTS

|| CORAM: i) HON MR JUSTICE M O ADOPHY JA \ HON MR JUSTICE G GELAGA KING JA . | HON MR JUSTICE A B TIMBO JA. Terence Terry, Esq., for the applicants | Francis A: Gabbidon, Esq,, for the respondents. pe | | RULING DELIVERED THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 1994

|G. GELAGA KING, ].A: On the 26th day of April, 1994, this Court set aside the | Order of Macauley J. herein dated the 4th day of February, 1994, together with all

subsequent proceedings and granted a stay of execution on terms to the | | Tespondents, who were the defendants in the lower Court, pending the hearing | |\ | and determination of their appeal to this Court. | | | By notice of motion dated the 13th day of May, 1994, made under Misc. App. | | | 11/94, the applicants herein (the plaintiffs in the Court below) attempted, inter . |! alia, to apply to us to grant a stay of execution of our said Order of 26th April,

1994, on the ground that they were proposing to appeal to the Supreme Court | || Against our Order granting a stay of execution. The respondents took a | | Preliminary point which we upheld and we struck out that motion. licants are again

Now, by another notice of motion dated 21st June, 1994, the app ‘ seeking, inter ‘lla; stay of execution of this Court's Order of 26th April, 1994,

"Pending the hearing and determination of an appeal they say they have lodged in the Supreme Court against our Order granting a stay of execution on terms. ondents, quite rightly in my | Pinion, took a preliminary objectior 1994, their only remedy was to appeal | dlssatistied with our Order of 26th April, 1994, 4 on | at a |

a a 0

lh ;

ind certainly not to apply to us to sta: } quite rightly, | opine, that the effect e7 maeken mr ston on } asked to grant a stay of ts own ston at this Court is being When views practical terms, what the applicants are asking this Court to do | [is to order tl have ee allowed to cany out execution despite and inspite of the fact that we aie stopped them, Pending their oppeal against our Order granting

|| a stay. If we rn them, we will then have the ludicrous situation where \) { execution would have been carried out by them and yet, they, the applicants,

| ll would be purporting to Appeal against our Order staying execution even though

execution had been carried by them! Nothing could be more absurd, or frivolous

'\| and vexatious.

_ Counsel for the applicants submitted that they were making this novel || application under 1.60 (1) & (2) of the Supreme Court Rules P.N. No. 1 of 1982,

| which state as follows: | “60

(1) A civil appeal shall not operate as a stay of execution or of | Proceedings under the Judgment or decision appealed against except In so i far as the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal may otherwise order. v ed (2) ... an application for a sta yy of execution or Proceedings shall first | be made to the Court of Appeal and if that Court refuses to grant the j application, the applicant shall be entitled to renew the application before

i the Supreme Court for determination."

_ In my judgment, what these Provislons envisage are those cases where the | |, Judgment appealed from Tequires the appellant to Pay money or perform a duty; | | not the Instant case where no such order has been made against the appellants ||| ‘who are the applicants herein. This Court's Order granting a stay of execution

| | does not Tequire the appellants to Pay money or perform a duty. It only prevents ‘) | them, as judgment creditor, from putting into operation the ‘legal processes of

i \ execution and does not affect Tights acquired independently of the Process stayed. | | Vide Clifton Securities Itd. v. Huntle 1948] 2 AILER 283 | |) As! sald eater, these repeated appcations Yo thi Core ceking ust stay our own stay smirks of an abuse of Process and must, in those circumstances, be made | short shrift of. This Court has an inherent jurisdiction to control its own

|| Proceedings so as to Prevent an abuse of process and we have the Power to stay i Proceedings which are frivolous, vexatious or harassing, or which are manifestly | | tates or where the justice of the case so Tequires. Vide Metropolitan Bank |

¥. Pooley (1885) 10 App. Cas. 210, HL. | | This Court cannot be asked to stay its own stay of execution order. The | | SPplication before us Is, therefore, an abuse of process and ought to be dismissed | and it is hereby dismissed with costs. We will now hear Counsel on the question

| of costs, no Cosh Ged. } @ Q aA] __ Hon Mr Justice G. Gelaga King JA |

{ agree REC Ke HonMr Justice MOAdophyJA (Presiding

| lagree Thy nS Hon Mr Justice A B Timbo [A |

=t

J |