Kathrine P.S Bangura & Another v Alhaji G. Jah (MISC APP 39 of 1993) [2000] SLCA 6 (6 July 2000)

g, app. 39/93 - \ ee [U0 ./ IN_THR COURT OF APPEAL YOR Simms 12 ]

U t | psTWexNt~ ie KATHERINB P.S, BANGURA | AND - DEFENDANTS /APPLICANTS NOHAMED SOLOMON |

AND ALHAJI GASSINU JAH - PLALNTLPY/RESPONDENT | CORAMS : | HONOURABLE MR, JUSTICR G, GELAGA-KING = J. = | HONOURABLE MR, JUSTICE A, B, TIMBO = 5.8.0. | i HONOURABLE MR, JUSTICE N, D, ALHADI = J. Ae i BETTS AND BEREVA FOR THR APPLICANTS a: - YADA WILLIAMS SQ, FOR THE RESPONDENT .

uuis DREAD Tax or Yoh, ox_tas_5 “ur oth 2000 TIMBOy J.S.C. +, This ia an application by notice of motion dated the 26th day of october 1993 on behalf of the applicants seeking the following orders:

(1) The defendants/ applicants herein be granted an extension of time * within which to, appeal against the judgnent and order, of the High { Court nade on the 2nd day of July, 1993 by the Honourable Mr, \ 4 Justice V.A.D, Wright in the ection intitled: a "cc. 94/90 wR No. 8 : eR * q IN THR HIGH. COURT OF SIBRRA. LBONR, a| q : | q q ALHAJI CASSTMU JAH - PLAINTIFF : H ‘ i 4 ap | KATHERINE P,S. BANGURA ~*~ 19%) DEFENDANT , , AND 8) Qe aot * MOHAMED SOLOMON - 2D DEFENDANT: : ~~ R iin iS gy ig PACT in (lil Po ae, ee ———S— eet, oe, wif ~~ Li. * a ———————______

’ iq. ) Y mee yotioe of Appeal be filed within the tige #0 granted, i | gaat he court be pleased to grant a stay of proceedings and ty 0 gqooution of the judgnont of the High Court dated the 2nd V4 saty 1995 4m the matter herein, =~ { “ partner oF OC8OF Relief, ‘ ne opplication 18 supported by the joint affidavit of Katherine pis. Bangura aod Hobaned Solonon the applicants herein dated the | path aay of ootoder 1993+ Paragrapte5 of the said affidavit 18 | qquoial in ny view tothe! determination of this application. i! qhe applicants averred therein as follows: a 1 3 that we heve been advised by the firm of Betts | : and Boreva that the grounds of appeal dram up in . Braibit "A" are good grounds but they expressed 2 : the view that the Notice of Appeal hes Yoon filed out of time, since it should have been filed bY the ist October 1993" It is interesting tc note chat in arguing the motion, counsel for . tue applicants with‘great cendour ednitt4d Like the applicants had done isinetr Joint affidavit that the eppeal had certainly been filed out of tine, He referred us to the case of Alphonso Campbell and others 1. the State SC. CRs APP. 4c, W/s2 (unngported) - ruling delivered dy Luke C.J. on the 4th on July 1983 on the computation of time.

n \ daving thus clearly conceded that the appeal was outside the pres- 7 ; cribed period cam 2 on or part grant tae.epplicants am extension of ‘ tine, in order to file ctheir appeal out of time? Rule 11 subsections

(1) and (6) 4h particular of the Court of Appeal Rules (PN No, 29 1985) are pertinent in this respect. . Rule 11 (1) states . "Jo appeal shall be brought after the expiration of fourteen days {2 the case of an appeal egainst an interlocutary decision oF of

YY MA Ye = Se os er o ————————St—‘i:é‘S*™

q f (4 . | q { tnree months in the case of an appeal against « final g decision unless the court enlarges the tine", hd jule 11 (6) on the other hand emphatically directs that, } 46) No application for enlargement of tine within which | to appeal shall be made after the expiration of the tise | prescribed within which an appeal may be brought, | uw 9 | gegretably, with the facts before ie ve ous unable to allow the : applicants an extension of time, within which to lodge their appeal Mie > wuctoned 9 pecause as ve howe already seem, rule 11(6) says ie cannot, on the third order sought i.e, to stay execution, I believe in DD, 1s view of what & have already said above this question now becomes ¢ purely academic as an application for a stay can only be entertained > \ 3 at o ynere there is a valid appeal pending which is not the case here, \4 This apart, by rule 64 of the Court of Appeal rules an application 1 | for a stay must first be nade to the Court below, There vas no i

evidence that an application had been made to the High Court for a stay of execution of the judgment of Wright J (as she then vas). So, fe even if there was nd rule 11(6), $. would still not have been ina position to grant the stay sought because of rule 64, _ ‘The application is accordingly dismissed with costs. “. = ( a % Hon, Mr. Justice A.B. Timbo, JSC T agrectsssctssecsececesscsescsecsoenessnsonsons _ Hon, Mr, Justice G, Gelage-King, J-A. Hon, Mr, Justicbice N.D, Alhadi, Jods ad

F ff Ny if 143 ‘ Misoe Apps 39/93 In v0 | TEE_OOURY OF arPRAL, FoR Lom Ba lWEmNs — Kato “ e HERING P.s. A BANGURA ~ DEFEMDAWIS/sPPLicamis ¥ AND : i, MOHAMED SOLOMON Lit : é a ALHAJI Gassing mag ~ PLADVITF?/RESPONDEN? ,

Coram

— - ; *\ HONOURABLE MR. JUSWTCE G.cmLaGA-oNG = Toke | HONORUAELE MR. JUSTICE A.B.TDM0 - 568.0. | HOMUURAELE NR" JUS!TCE ND. ALRADT Tae” BETS AND BEREWA FOR WWE APPLICANTS =~ | YADA WILLIAMS ESQ., TOR IE RESPONDENT . 7 AIHADT JA. ; : I agree with the Ruling just delivered ty my Leamed Brother the 4 3 d&ffidavit evidence before us thet the Application should be dismissed more |

so as there is no evidence that the non-compliance was not wilful | My: . (Sgd) Hone Mr. Just€e’N-D. Alhadi- Batis, oy :