Kadiatu Kamara & ORS v Umaru Kamara & ORS (CIVAPP 76/2025) [2026] SLCA 4 (2 July 2026)

CIV. APP. 76/2025

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SIERRA LEONE BETWEEN: KADIATU KAMARA 18? APPELLANT/APPLICANT MUSU TURAY 2NP APPELLANT/APPLICANT EJATU KANU 3° APPELLANT/APPLICANT KADIATU KARGBO 4" APPELLANT/APPLICANT RUGIATU KAMARA 5TH 4 ppPELLANT/APPLICANT IBRAHIM KAMARA 6"! APPELLANT/APPLICANT ALIMATU KAMARA 77 4 PPELLANT/APPLICANT FATMATA KAMARA 8™ 4PPELLANT/APPLICANT AIL C/O 14® & 14° Koroma Street, calaba Town, Freetown AND UMARU KAMARA 187 RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT Schweinauer StraBe 60 90439, Germany IYE FOFANAH 2° RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT MARIE DUMBUYA 3®°RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT ISSA KAMARA 4"! RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT All of Bama Junction, Waterloo — Masiaka Highway

Coram

HON. MR. JUSTICE SULAIMAN AHMAD BAH, JA, PRESIDING, HON. MR. JUSTICE M.A.J. STEVENS, JA. HON. MR. JUSTICE A T GANDA, JA. COUNSEL: E.T. Lassayo and H.M. Fofanah for the Appellants/Applicants. B.J. Reffell for the Respondents/ Respondents.

RULING DELIVERED ON THE 2%” DAY OF JULY, 2026. ; The Application

1. This application is by way of a Notice of Motion dated the 8" day of January,2026, filed ¢ by the appellants/applicants seeking reliefs stated thereon as follows: Z

1. That an interim stay of execution be granted in respect of the [Ruling] of the Hon Justice Hannah Bonnie, J. delivered orally on the 17" December 2025 but the written version of which is dated the 18'" December 2025 in the matter intituled CC, 8/25. 2025 K No. 9 Kadiatu Kamara & Others AND Umarr Kamara & Others and all subsequent proceedings pending the hearing and determination of = this application; f

2. That a stay of execution be granted in respect of the [Ruling] of the Hon Justice Zz Hannah Bonnie, J. delivered orally on the 17" December 2025 but the written 3 version of which is dated the 18" December 2025 in the matter intituled CC. § 8/25. 2025 K No. 9 Kadiatu Kamara & Others AND Umarr Kamara & Others : and all subsequent proceedings pending the hearing and determination of the s [a]ppellants/[a]pplicants’ appeal herein; ‘

3. Any further Order(s) that this Honourable Court may deem fit and just in the 5 circumstance.” fs

2. In support of the application is the affidavit of Hassan Muctar Fofanah Esq sworn to on £ the 8" day of January, 2026, together with the exhibits attached thereto. The Court will x be referring to certain paragraphs of the affidavit later, as it deems fit. : Submissions “

3. ET Lassayo Esq., commenced by relying on the entirety of the affidavit and the exhibits . attached thereto. Counsel made the following submissions: . e That the Court is vested with jurisdiction to hear and determine his application for : stay of the Ruling of the Learned Trial Judge (hereinafter referred to LTJ) and : relied on Rules 28 and 64 of the Court of Appeal Rules 1985 (hereinafter referred to as CAR). He also relied on paragraph 17 of the affidavit in support, which state . “, the refusal of the [L]earned [T]rial [J]udge to hear the application for stay yet proceeding to hear and grant the application for leave to issue writ of possession amounts to constructive refusal of the application for stay.” © That the Notice of Appeal dated the 19" December 2025, exhibited as RKq ', contain grounds of appeal that are good and strong enough to warrant the Court to exercise its discretion in staying the Ruling of the Learned Trial Judge (hereinafter referred to LTJ).

¢ That all the parties to the action except the 2" and 3“ Respondents are members of the family of the deceased Lamin Kamara, and consequently, that special relationship between them qualifies as a special circumstance warranting this Court to exercise its discretion. In support of this submission he referred to paragraphs 18, 19 and 21 of the affidavit in support and then relied on Mrs Lucy Decker & others vs. Goldstone Decker Mise App 13/2002 (hereinafter referred to the Decker vs Decker case).

e That the subject matter of this appeal houses the grave containing the remains of the deceased intestate and a Mosque for which the appellants/applicants have a static attachment to the property potentially to be lost where a stay is not granted, does amount to a special circumstance. The Court was referred to paragraphs 35 & 38 of the affidavit in support.

4. In opposition, B.J. Reffell commenced by referring to the affidavit in opposition sworn to by Ibrahim Kamara Esq on the 17" April 2026. Counsel relied on the entirety of the affidavit and the exhibits attached thereto. Counsel submitted the following:

* That there is nothing to stay as execution was complete and vacant possession handed over to the defendants (now respondents). In furtherance of this submission, Counsel referred to paragraph 11 of the affidavit in opposition exhibiting a copy of the Returns (exhibit H) under the hand of the Under Sheriff and dated the 7 day of February 2026. Further, Counsel submitted that asking the Court to grant a stay after the said execution was completed is like supplying medicine to a dead man or it can also be equated to closing the stable after the horses have bolted. In support of this submissions he relied on a Nigerian Supreme Court authority Zenith Bank Ple Vs Chief Arthur John and Others ((SC.519/2012) [2015] NGSC 730 day of January 2015) (hereinafter referred to the Zenith Bank Ple case). He further submitted that the authority, though foreign, should be considered as the basis of the above submission that there is nothing before this Court to Stay.

¢ That the orders in the drawn up Order of the written Ruling dated the 18" December 2025 exhibited as RKe'?, now sought to be stayed are Declaratory Orders and therefore, they do not fall within the category of orders that can be stayed. In support of this submission Counsel referred to Tanios Gebran Chaghoury V Jamal Kamel Wanza Civ. App. 57/24 — dated 20" day of April 2025 (hereinafter referred to the Tanios Geran Chaghoury case).

a

e That the non-hearing and non-determination of the application for a stay of execution dated 19" day of December 2025, by the LTJ does not ipso facto aE the appellants/applicants the reason to come to this Court as the said non-hearing and non-determination does not amount to an order refusing the stay. In support of this submission Counsel referred to Betty Mansaray & Other V Marie Kamara-Williams Mise.App 4/2017 (hereinafter referred to the Betty Mansaray case). Deliberations.

5. There is no contention that Rules 28 and 64 of CAR governs the stay of execution regime. However, Counsel are at variance as to what amounts to a refusal by the Court below; and, how the said refusal would vest jurisdiction on this Court to hear and determine a stay application. The appellants/applicants, via paragraph 17 of the affidavit in support have stated that: “... the refusal of the [L]earned [ TJrial [JJudge to hear the application for stay yet proceeding to hear and grant the application for leave to issue writ of possession amounts to constructive refusal of the application for stay.” This averment by the appellants/applicants, is what Counsel for the respondents would want this Court to believe does not amount to a refusal by the Court below. Counsel’s submission is that the non-hearing and non-determination of the application for a stay of execution dated the 19" day of December 2025, does not ipso facto give the appellants/applicants the reason to come to this Court as the said non-hearing and nondetermination does not amount to an order refusing the stay. In support of his submission, Counsel for the respondents relied on the Betty Mansaray case. That case most certainly cannot be a helpful authority to Counsel’s submission, as it deals with the ‘refusal to decide a point of law’, a ‘judge’s alleged bias’ and the ‘delay in delivering judgment’.

6. What amounts to refusals by the Court below was well answered by this Court in Leonoil Company Limited vs Jaffer Zeghir Civ App 13/2024, where R S Fynn JA opined: “The answer according to the authorities appears to lie with two possibilities; firstly, when there is an actual or outright denial of the stay application resulting in the clear dismissal of the application, And secondly when there is a | constructive or indirect refusal of the stay application.” Emphasis added. | The authorities considered by his Lordship in the Leonoil Company Limited case includes: Firetex International Co Ltd ys Sierra Leone External Co Ltd Misc app | 19/2002, Adama Mansaray vs Brima Mansaray Civ App 31/81, Africana Tokeh | Village Ltd Vs John Obey Development Investment Co Ltd Mise App 2/1994 (herein | after referred to the Africana Tokeh Village case), Hassan Turay vs Bintu Mansaray Misc App 3/2016, and Aiah Fengai & 73 others & Marginalised Affected Property Owners vs Octea Ltd & The Managing Director of Octea Limited & Others

‘Od Sis

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