Joyce Johnson v Basita Daklallah (CIV APP 60 of 2008; CIV APP 64 of 2008; CIV APP 66 of 2008) [2017] SLCA 1172 (23 June 2017)

£ CIV APPS 60/ 64/ & 66/2008 v IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SIERRA LEONE (A mam OT BETWEEN JOYCE DUNIE JOHNSON (Nee DAVIES) GEORGE AGIBADE JOHNSON) - 1" APPELLANTS (Joint) QUEENTE WILLTAMS, - 2 APPELLANT MARILYN TUCKER, ~ 3° APPELLANT SIMEON MORIBA ~ 4™ APPELLANT OLUWALE STAFFORD - 5™ APPELLANT ‘AND BASITA DAKLALLAH ~ REBPONDENT (Suing by her Attorney SAHID DAKLALLAH) COUNSEL: JB JENKINS-JOHNSTON ESQ for the Joint 1" and 2% Appellants C.J PEACOCK ESQ for 2%, 3" and 5" Respondents 4° Appellant was unrepresented and did not appear at the hearing of the appeal E A HALLOWAY Esq, For the Respondent

Coram

THE HON. MR JUSTICE NC BROWNE-MARKE . JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT THE HON MS JUSTICE V M SOLOMON, JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT THE HON MR JUSTICE A S ope JUSTICE OF APPEAL JUDGMENT DELIVERED THE ABDAY OF JULY,2016

Background

1, These several appeals have come up before us for hearing and determination as a result of certain events which took place in the Tudiciary, The appeals were first heard by a Bench comprising of BASH- TAQE, JSC, ADEMOSU,JA and TAYLOR, J on 8" December,2009. Counsel for the Appellants and Respondent, respectively had earlier filed their respective synopses. They also made oral submissions at the hearing, Judgment was reserved by that Court that same day. In mid-

eat, a 2011, the late ADEMOSU,JA, took up appointment as Chairman of the y Political Parties Registration Commission. But before doing so, he had lj written out his Judgment and had asked that it be read by another ¢ Judge. The then Learned Chief Justice, The Hon Justice U H Tejan- Talloh assigned the task to me, and handed over to me the late Learned Judge's Judgment. He died in April of the following year, ie. 2012 before this could be delivered. In June,2012, TAYLOR,J left for medical treatment abroad without indicating whether she was for, or, against the ‘oppeal being allowed, She did not return to office, and subsequently died late last year. In January,2013, BASH-TAQI, JSC, left for the United Kingdom for medical treatment, She also did not return to office, and has since retired, The Judgment of that Court therefore remains undelivered. In May 2014, an appeal was made to the Honourable the Chief Justice by Solicitors for the Respondent for a fresh panel to be appointed so that the several appeals could be heard and determined. In May,2014 the Learned Chief Justice appointed this panel to hear these appeals

Proceedings Before This Panel of Justices

2. At the first hearing before this panel of Judges, the Bench suggested to Counsel that perhaps the best way forward, was for them to re-submit to the Court, the respective synopses they had filed. They could, if they so desired, make additions to, revise or review these submissions, and would a still be entitled to make oral submissions before us. Counsel agreed to this. Their earlier synopses were re-filed, All three of them relied on them, and made ne further orel submissions. Judgment was then reserved, But in July,2014, Mr Peacock filed in the Court's Registry, what he described as "Additional written submission and cited authority’. The substance of this submission is that the joint 1" Defendants had, whilst ‘this appeal was pending before the earlier pane! in 2009, instituted an action against the Minister of Lands and others, apparently in respect of the very land in dispute in this appeal: and that they had obtained Judgment in default of defence in their favour on 12 March,2010. We do rot think this was a proper course of action to take as the appeal was pending, and in any event, it does not add to the merits of the arguments initially canvassed by Mr Peacock in his synopsis.

The Appeals

#1 '/

3. The several Appellants herein, have filed Notices of Appeal Nose ey / 60/2008, 64/2008 and 66/2008 respectively. Civ App 66/2008 is that of y/ the 4!" Appellant, and the Notice thereof, is dated 19"* November 2008. / AAs the joint appeal of the 2, 3° and 5" Appellants, Civ App 60/2008 Y was the first to be filed on 22" October,2008, I shall deal with it first. ‘The appeal is against the whole of the Judgment of the Hon Mr Justice A 5 SESAY, then a Judge of the High Court, now a Justice of Appeal, dated 20"* August,2008. It is to be found at pages 557 - 559 of the Record. Hereafter, references to page numbers, will be references to pages in ‘the Record, The grounds are as follows: @ ‘That the Learned Trial Judge erred in law in holding that the purported memorandum from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to the Ministry of Lands and Surveys transferred and or vested title in the Ministry of Lands and surveys in respect of (sic) a certain land to have been forest reserve, when the said purported Memorandum was not: (a) Gazetted as required by Law: (b) did not show the extent of the forest reserve land which was purportedly ceded, which makes it vague and uncertain as to acreage and to its demarcations (i) That the Learned Trial Judge misdirected himself as to the evidence adduced by DW1 - Madam Georgiana Elizabeth Abayomi-Cole - the lawful Administratrix of the estate of the late Dr John Abayomi Cole (Testate) ~ from whom the 2" and 5 3% and 5" Defendants derived their title when he held that she was not a beneficiary under the will of the late Dr John Abayomi Cole (Testate). Gi) The Learned Trial Judge erred in law by holding that the Ministry of Lands and Surveys had good title to pass unto the plaintiff by virtue of the inherent defect above-stated in ground 1.

4, The reliefs sought by these Appellants are that the said judgment be set aside and that judgment be entered in favour of them based on their counter-claim: and that the Respondent bears the Costs of the appeal and in the Court below.

5, The appeal of the joint 1°° Appellants is in much the same terms, and is to be found at pages 560 - 562 of the Record. There is on additional ground, that the whole of the evidence proferred by the Respondent at the trial did not substantiate (sic) that the parcel of land claimed by the 1"

red

. ta =e : iF _ / appellant was State land or forest reserve. The reliefs sought by them are very much the same as in the previous instance. 7

6. The 4" Appellant's appeal is to be found at pages 563 ~ 565 of the Record, The grounds of appeal are the same as in the case of the 1” Appellant, and the reliefs sought the same, save that, additionally, the 4" ‘Appellant is asking that judgment be entered in his favour based on his counterclaim. 47 APPELLANT'S APPEAL STRUCK OUT

7. By Notice filed on 7" December,2009, E A Halloway esq, Counsel for the Respondent, applied to the Court presided over by BASH-TAQL, JA, (later, JSC) for the 4" Appellant's appeal to be dismissed for noncompliance with the directive of the Court that Counsel for the respective parties should submit synopses of arguments and submissions on behalf of their respective clients. The 4” Respondent was absent and unrepresented at the hearing of the appeal. We have not got a record of the proceedings at the hearing, but at page 4 of his Judgment, ADEMOSU, JA noted that: "I think that it is necessary fo put on record that the 4"* Appellant was absent and was unrepresented at the trial. In the absence of any objection to Mr Holloway’s application, the appeal of Simeon Moriba was struck out..." AS such, there is no appeal on behalf of ‘Mr Moriba before us for consideration. NOTICE OF INTENTION TO AMEND GROUNDS OF APPEAL °

8. Another development before the earlier panel of Justices which heard this appeal, was a Notice of Intention to amend grounds of appeal filed on 25" October 2009 by Mr Peacock on behalf of the 2%, 3° and 5" Appellants in this Court. Again, ADEMOSU, JA noted at page 4 of his Judgment that Mr Peacock abandoned that Application at the hearing of ‘the appeal, and relied on the grounds of appeal originally filed on behalf of his clients, I have read the Notice, and I believe that ground had its origins in a Ruling I delivered on an application for stay of execution of the Judgment of SESAY, J, made on behalf of the 2%, 3% and 5" ‘Appellants by Mr Peacock. That Ruling was delivered on 21" Jenaury,2009 nd is to be found at pages 329 - 334 of the Record. Also, in that Ruling, T expressed grave doubts about the reliability and authenticity of the offidavit evidence the respective Appellants had presented to the Court to support their respective applications. u

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