Kora Sesay And 2 Others v Allie M. Kamara And Others (SC MISC APP 8 of 1999) [2000] SLSC 18 (28 March 2000)

ets lus . . TY ts SRB COR? oF srmma too > Sos 150» APP. 6/99 . . xoRA SEY ann SEur = werrowms DORA conn

Yee ; AULTE Me KURA ° ‘KONDA KAMARA - RESPONDNIS ae conte : HON. MR, JUSPIGE D.B.P. UKE = oats EON. We JUSCIOR Ho eJOKO-SKART = 368400 HON. MR. JUSPIGS 5,068- TARE = 3.8.06 ‘ BON. MR. JUSTICE B.C.IHONPSOF-DVIS — - 3.9.04 : BON. Re JUSTICE Mee TOURAMIEONPSON Sake A.P. Senry-amal Bogs, for Applicante Dr+ Ado Ronner~Theaae for Roeyondente + RULIMWG is : an Huluwg vexzveren on om 28 may oF MARCH 2000 “ waRHE, sce mais is an application ty my of @ notion for an enlazgenant of tino within which to appeal to the Supzeso Court pursuit to Rilo 26(4) ef the ules of the Suprese Court PM+ 10.1! of 1982 fe Aaa (Sas Mat Tis én @ matter vhich as a Ting history. /tho applicstion wa fixét hoard by 0 Gourt of three Juntioes of the Suprese Court. Submissions ware mde before that Court ant the Court refused the application ty mjority of two and there was @ dissenting Ruling by one Justices : Boing dissatisfied, Counsel for the applicants renewed the application before the full court of five Justices pursuant to section 126(b) of the Constitution of Sierra Leone Act 0.6 of 1991 (hereafter referred to as the =| r Constitution). There wore several adjoummonts at the instance of, the applicanta On the 14th Docenbor 1999, the matter is struck out for vent of prosecution of the action. ‘On that date Counsel wae ateont without any reason given to the Court. Be that'as it my, the first applicant, Kom Sesay, ¥ Doing presont, ras invited to proseoute the notion but indicated that he could 1 not because he'ws unwell and cannot speak out for hinself.

(Yb sgn A "£0 to pertinent that £ relate the proceeding before the Court of five Justices on the 14th Decesber 1999: anong the Justices there was Me. Juntice MD. ABteds JAy who gave the Goventing Riding in the Court of thze0 Justioosherein before santionede 1s ‘These are the notes in the proceedings:- "Sorsy-tamel for tho Applicant abeant + Be Ae Remnar-Rome fe Reaptotent Hun temay applicant seveent focus court tio of the applicants are aeade om Senay applicant mas david by the . Court to proceed with the motion, this he fasted to dos the mattar was therefore ‘ Struck outs Coote amzded to Respondent - assessed at Le100.,000," 1m apite of this decision, Counsel for applicant seneved hie application Defore the £ul2 court of five Justioes- | on the 20% Jamaryy 2000 the matter case wp Deira te £12 courts Yo. Semmp-nanl for applicants we aguin sboenty Kom Soeay’ tot applicant + Was progent. It is reported that two of the applicants vero dende | e+ Ae Romer-thoms, with hin me Mee Us tasuse, slifresent for the Noppondonte. At that hetning Tore Sosay stated his lawyer was absent F Too Court indiontod tat 4¢ was minded to grant » further adjournaant fon contstion the applicant sage the conte of Lo100..000 to be yaa ty the tian of Serry-Kamal and 00) Solicitors. On the 9th Pobmuary 2000 the matter cane wp agin for hensings Mrv Serry-asal for applicants was present and Dr. Ade RennexThonas for . ‘he Respondents was also presente Share vas a full Mom heuringe Gouneed on Woth sides made their mutniesions with convictions wilt later nefen to - the various outmissions. ‘he mtter was adjousted to i5th Pobmuy 2000. 46 te hearing on tho 15th Fobminzy 2000, ls» Sery-faau) we reminded that : ‘aie application ind bean etruck out on 14th Decendery 1999 for want of prose outions On that use date ke» Somny-Kasa) asta tod tht section 126(0) of ‘the Constitution gure hin a right tochearing, and argued that the Court 4s not 7 Properly constjtuted because the application is a review not an appeal. [Becvecveeee

et Saeeen geen ¥ tho Court muled tat't fa properly consts tuto and adjoismet the matter to 17th February} 2000. In opto of the fact that there 49 no provision in the Conatt tution and the Rules that hon @ Court of five Justices had etruck out an appli a cation, the application can bo heart again by a Aull courty the Court invoked ite inherent juriodietion to contime the hazing of the application in the intedoot of justion and furthemore that 1itig tion mot have an onde Having said that, I will nov consider tho anaiments put formant by both Counsel ‘he notion fled 4a clear and unequivocal Tt states, inter alias "man appltontion on bebalf of the aforesaid Kore Sesay for an onter that the Cntar of this Honoumble . Court dated the 30th day of Septenber 1999 be varied, : Adscharged or‘roversod Wy @ full court purmuant to Section 126(2) of the Constitution of Sivsse Luone 1999 Aot Mnbar 6 of 1991 on the grouse thatieeseerseest ‘Me grounds wore mubered 1-5 inclusives Cowioel applied for leave” to atandon grouia 1-4 + Counsel for respontont 442 not objects ‘The Court granted the leave accontingly, whereupon Counsel proceeded to angue ground 5 i vinich' reads "that the applicant Kose Sossy be granted an enlargment of tine within ahich 43 £110 hia appeal to the Syprene Court. | Tia application aa T have stated ie made purmuant to mile 26(4) of Fate Soot of 19026 : Rule 26(4) provides thats : vio apslication for entazgenent of tine dn which to appel shall b6 me after the expiration of ong month from’ the expimation of the tine prosontbed within which an appetl my bo sought Bvoxy spplloation for enlangenent of tise v ‘shat to by notion supported by an affidarit netting forth ‘good and substantial reasons for the application ant ty lows of appeal which prize fuote show good cause for eave be granted. - (Baphasis nine) — when tine te 6o enlarged ‘ "scopy of the enter granting much onlaxgoront shall be amoxod 5 to the notice of appeal." Movssveens

tee (Ks tho mule io cloar ani unaguivocel+ Counsel for the applicants pricooted ¥. with.his submiesion ani’ wis granted leave to use & supplemental affidavit evorn on 29% Decesber, 1999+ Counsel further aubni tted that all the ocunents/exhibits filed are in support of the motions + mo doousente/exhitita are the folloving!~ the afSidavit of Kom Scsay the tet applicant horein svozn to on 20th deciber 1999+ EXMDIt "AY ts th Writ of Sunsons fied on 4th July, 1987+ Eeusbit "I" is tho dzaun up Onler of the Court of Appetl dated 2nd Aprils

Euibit "0" is the Hotice of Motion to the Suprene Court for an enlangenent of tine in vhich to appeal to the Suprene Court dated 318% July, 1996+ BAibit "DY ie the Intended Totioe of Apponl. | ‘Mere is also a owpplonantal affidavit svorn to ty Abid Pranlyn Sexy isa on Bin Dooastex 1999 and #124 herein with certain oxhibite in oupport of the affidavit Bekibit "AM i the Ruling of the Supreso Coust delivered on the 30% Soptonber 1999 refusing the application for enlargument of tine within which to appeals °, Ps 7 deo RemerMoms anguel forcefully that the application should be refused i He mado the following submisstorst— (4) _ Maat the oral ayplication ie a departure fron the reliefs sought i in tho body of the notion. Ho sutmitted that the Court has power to vary, ainoharge or rovsiee ontar of tho Court of threo Justices. Ho argued that Kx- Serry-Hanel bas not show shy the Oxtor of the court of three should be varied, discharged or reverset+ (2) counsel outaitted further that lire Serxy-Hamal having atanionod - croue 1 ~ 4 of the reliefe sought, xhat purgorts to bo the grou 5 38 not a grows Counsel submitted that he relies on the Ruling of goko-Smrt J50+ % in the Ruling of the 30th September 1999 as regrds the Locus Standi fof the applicants. Ho added that the title states throe applicants acd in the body of th motion there 4s only one applicant ant there da no oridence why the two other applicants ere not agplying ant ho + referred to Rule 37 of the Rules of the Suprene Courts Counsel hae 1 refers’ to Pamgrah 6 of Hhibit "D" that there are prospective appellenta dnaluding the two dead ones» Cousol referred to

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