Joyce Johnson v Basita Daklalah (22 of 2016) [2016] SLCA 1184 (20 December 2016)

‘ liu \ » BETWEEN:

JOYCE JOHNSON APPELLANTS/APPLICANTS

GEORGE AGIBADE JOHNSON

QUEENTE WILLAMS

MARILYN TUCKER

‘SIMEON MORIBA

OLUWALE STAFFORD

AND

BASITA DAKLALAH RESPONDENT

Through her Attorney, SAHID DAKLALAH .

COUNSEL:

LEON JENKINS-JOHNSTON ESQ& MRS F FORSTER for the joint 1* Appellants

C J PEACOCK ESQ for 2, 3 and 5" Appellants

The 4" named person did not appeal and was not represented at the hearing

Coram

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N C BROWNE-MARKE

JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT

THE HONOURABLE MS V M SOLOMON JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A S FOFANAH, JUSTICE OF APPEAL

DECISION DELIVERED TUESDAY THE 20 DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016

The Applications

1, There are two Applications before us for decision, The first, is that filed on

2™ September 2016by Jenkins-Johnston & Co on behalf of the joint 1* ‘Appellants, Joyce Johnstpn and George Agibade Johnson: and the second, is, that dated 6 September 2016 filed by Mr Peacock on behalf of the 2%, 3° and 5" Appellants herein. Both Applications were heard together by this Court. In both Applications, the respective Appellants/Applicants, whom I shall hereafter call the Appellants, have applied to this Court for a stay of

sacl vie z . 3 execution of the Judgment of this Court delivered on 28 July,2016, pending the hearing and determination of their respective appeals to the Supreme Court. They have also asked for any further or other Orders this Honourable Court may deem just in the circumstances. The respective Applications were heard on 23 November and on 13 December,2016 after which Ruling was reserved. We now give our Ruling.

JOINT 15" APPELLANTS’ APPLICATION

2. The joint 1° Appellants’ Application is supported by the joint affidavit “(lu the two of them deposed and sworn to on 1 SeptAber,2016, To that affidavit are exhibited several documents, Exhibits A - J are in our opinion, documents which relate to substantive or triable issues dealt with by the trial. Judge, ALUSINE SESAY, JA and by this Court, in its said Judgment. ‘Apart from exhibit A, which is a copy of the writ of summons issued by the Respondent, the other documents were those relied on by the deceased 1 Defendant at the trial, and by the joint 1° and 2" Appellants at the hearing of the Appeal in this Court. The trial Judge and this Court have made pronouncements on the strength and validity of these documents, and we do not think it is necessary to deal with them further,

3. Exhibits K, L, and M are documents incidental to the hearing of the appeal which was dismissed by this Honourable Court. These documents are those exhibited to the joint Appellants’ joint af fidavit between paragraphs 1 and 13, Of more relevance to the Application herein, are exhibit N, which is a copy of this Court's judgment, and exhibit O which is a copy of the Notice of Appeal. Also of primary importance, for the purposes of this Application, and which should weigh in the scales in favour of these Appellants, are the matters deposed to by the Joint ‘Appellants in paragraphs 16 -

21. There, the Joint 1 Appellants have deposed that the land, the subject matter of our Judgment, has been in the ownership and/or possession of their family for well over 100 years, and that dwelling houses have been constructed on the same,

4, However, in truth, portions of the property claimed by these Appellants in their joint affidavit, no longer belong to them, or to members of their respective families. Some portions of the property have been sold off, as is shown in exhibits "P1 42" respectively.

vi

e 5, Exhibit "PI" is a copy of a deed of conveyance said to have been made on 16 November, 2007 and duly registered by Mr Peacock. Exhibit A, tells us that the writ of summons was issued on 10 July,2007 and that some of the reliefs | prayed for by the Respondent were that declarations be made by the trial | Court that certain lands were hers, and that an Injunction be granted | restraining the deceased 1 Defendant at the trial, and the other | Defendants therein, now Appellants, from dealing with these lands. An Interlocutory Injunction was granted in the terms stated in the writ, and it lasted until, and was continued in existence by the Judgment delivered in the High Court on 20 October 2008. Further, exhibit "P1" was made out to one. Mrs Sarch Kargbo, who was not an Appellant herein, nor is she an Appellant in the Supreme Court, and who has not, in any event, come to this Court, seeking relief from dispossession. No vesting assent is referred to in the deed. In fine, the property no longer belongs to these joint Appellants, but +o someone else who is not a party to the appeal, presently in the Supreme Court.

6. Exhibit "P2" is a copy of another deed of conveyance dated 8 September 2010 between Frank Bright Marke and one Mrs. Eleanor GittaKoroma, Neither vendor nor purchaser is a party to the Application herein, nor a party in the Appellants’ appeal to the Supreme Court. This deed was executed nearly 3 years after the writ of summons was issued, and nearly one year after Judgment had been given against the Appellants herein.

7. It follows therefore, that the matters deposed to in paragraph 18 of their joint affidavit, are not strictly speaking true: no hardship will be caused to the joint 1 and 2" Appellants because the property or properties they are referring to in that paragraph is, or are not theirs.

8. In paragraph 19, they depose that they have good and meritorious grounds of appeal which have a good chance of success in the Supreme Court. We have gone through these grounds, The particulars supporting the grounds are quite lengthy, but save for that, the grounds are not really exceptional. In fact, the particulars disclose that what we said in our Judgment, in effect, was that the Learned Trial Judge was right in coming to the decision he had reached because of the state of the evidence before him. If a surveyor called by a party says in evidence that the land he was asked to

QS —| survey falls within private land and partly within State land, he would have in 5 part, helped to prove the case of his client's opposing party. In effect, most

of the supposedly good grounds of appeal, are merely attempts at reopening issues which were, or, ought to have been canvassed at the trial: or, which were indeed canvassed, but were found to be unproven or, unsupported. But, the true weight to be given to them is a matter for the Supreme Court, and not for us. What we are concerned with, is whether they are of such note or” importance, that the Respondent should be deprived of her success at the trial and in the appeal to this Court. In arguing the Application before us ‘Mrs Forster relied heavily on the matters deposed to in paragraphs 16,17,18,19 & 21 and asked us not to dispossess the Appellants and those they had sold to, of the lands they were presently occupying, until the appeal to the Supreme Court was disposed of. As we have repeatedly stated above, there is no affidavit evidence before us that the joint 1" Appellants are in possession of any land which this Honourable Court has Ordered belongs to the Respondent,

28, 3°04. 5!" APPLICANTS’ APPLICATION

9. We shall turn to the merits of the Application filed on behalf of the 2%, 3°¢ ‘and 5" Appellants on € September,2016. It is also asking us to stay ‘execution of the Judgment of this Court dated 2@July,2016. It is supported by several affidavits. The 2"! Appellant, Mrs Queenie Williams, deposed and swore to three affidavits: on 6 September 2016; 11 October,2016 and on 22 November, 2016 respectively. The fourth affidavit filed on their behalf, was one, deposed and sworn to on 23 November 2016 by the 2”, 3° and 5 Appellants jointly, and was purportedly in reply to the Respondent's affidavit in opposition deposed and sworn to on 6 October 2016. But as its contents disclose, it is not so much an affidavit in reply, as an affidavit in response to ‘a comment this Court had made about the bona fides and propriety of the Appellants’ Application herein. We shall deal with it later in this Ruling

1" AFFIDAVIT OF 2%®, 3° AND 5™ APPELLANTS

10. Inher first affidavit, she began by deposing that what she was going to depose to, was on behalf of herself, and on behalf of the 3" and 5” Appellants. The Notice of Appeal to this Court, and the Judgment of this

a:

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