Lewis & Peat Produce Ltd v Paulo Pellizari (30 of 2000) [2001] SLCA 14 (24 January 2001)

Boao # Bee = » See ieee Ree 26 pag te, tc alee ee RCC EE 02000 1200 ea : INAH COURTORARBPAL OF SIERRA LEONI ae i. EAVAQS, TNO papal De MADR jn BEORIIGN JUDGMENT Mavi unuR ns (vinci Dees on Bag EEOPROCALENFORC! “4 AINaiNwtiGh COURTS OF JUSTICE (QUEENS BENCH DIVISION Ee ROW EOURE OF USHER SUES Av 200 FEBRUARY, 1981 Oe ees gee Sree tes Pe omen trae Fe in rei Fee ten U3 eee ee Peg, : Ba es ee MRRUBEDT OW. eae "Sitting is Dapilty High Court Judge etme dgtonmoR TD. sateen cei “: ) AEMATU PROPERTIES LID. = 1* Judgment Debtor ete Lp oe a8 BBOnE ames UAGENGIES LTD. - 2” Judgment Debtor Pee +. 3" Judgment Debtor ae HOUISIID< -— - 1° Gamishee a IRGRISEG COENEN HOVEN 2 Gamishee “! > TBROLOBEITIZART = = 3" Garnishee Pees ee () AAMAS PestPROD ECE pup. <~ _Plaimitt/Applicant ea ae ide, ot eames teeter Rh et we PAQHOBEUUIZZARE! =... -_-Defendant/Respondent “CORRE Ee “HON. JUSTICE TOLLA THOMPSON , 1. - ae ce ae: oe fa < BONAESICE AN PE SIRONGE DA. ton gOSHOEBALCOWan, 3A mer ie ts noe Fenn sen e

Ai Been 2t Eda eae Mea Tech eae mene ie ee Ae 95g RRSP NTERRS OR AE APDLIOA sp BRMRSVS ANDATHOAS FOR THE RESPONDEN YO wil lal " ened THIS 247" DAY OF JANUARY, 2001 : hismne On, the fo motions ated before us. Misc.App.30/2001 and ‘The applicant in the thbtions ainong others applies for the following orders:

1. Variation of the orders of the 8 and 12" December, 2000 respecitvely.

2. Leave to appetl to the Court of Appeal.

3. Stay ofiprogeedings relating to the hearing of the motion dated 7 July ‘The-application is supported by the affidavit of Dunstan Samuel Vincent ‘$somnito.on the 22" December, 2000 to which is annexed several exhibits aaa SReney Tingeply-toighathdaat in opposition, there are two more affidavits sworn to » RHHRES* Tatts, 200i Gy Dinisian Samuel Vincent with exhibits attached. ees paloma ee PD ate SS A dhs ity oF thls ase reveals that on the 26th February, 1991, ig Sigepeain HeLa HGR} Cops of Sustioe (Queens Bench Division) ie gs Eslind a Evora pat Lew ‘and Peat, the applicant herein. “The Here 3° See eae ihn hs eens . - cpl MMe ives dbainst three defetidanits, Alimatu Properties Ltd., Alimatu © Apeeres’ 110, And Misa 1 Kali Som a for the sum “$800,000 together with conttactual interest”. memorial ofthis judgment was sealed in tis < :, eae The Court Below. Bs. ee ; ‘To Sais the judemieni o; part hereof Gamishee proceedings was instituted by the applicant against the 3 Garnishee Paola Pellizzari a tenant of Musa

Sa ee OIL a i : oe : Bo _ 28 Fath eee aes | al hae 4 Shima die 3 Aeterdant inthe original action in the U.K. Consequently ee aaee do ale voemat jn the following words: : He ne ay Z co BIS be com to the contrary by the aeiondantit Gamnishee) the rent of $120,000 be made by the defendant (3% Garnishee) to the plaintiff (iudgment creditor) in défailt execution might be issued” ‘The above order was matte on tlie 16" June, 2000. On the 7" December, 2000 Mr. Banda Thomas learned counsel for the respondent proceeded to apply by way of motion for a stay of the above oder. ‘The application is stil,pending the court below. On the 28 November the -applicantscaled'a snivdf tifa which he subsequently attempted to execute ‘against the respondent, ‘Mr Bands Thomas, yee essfilly applied for the said fifa to be stayed; and « inthese words te “The vit on the amiotint of US8120,000.00 is not one that 1 ean endorse and therefore ‘no terms can be imposed on a stay. Mie-resilt-is that stay of execution of the writ of fifa is granted il twntemantn es eM ale eae ret this ode, os leaned Judge, Mr. Terry learned ‘counsel forthe applicant applied to this court for the orders earlier on stated,

iliac aeaatl a As amar ap Sa fo eo ee x z4 ote avail Be ORS ea, | ioe ry inf sibmnissionaéknowledged the point that itis within the BE SO ae Baia i eg cage cn : sy, ‘but submitted it should have been granted oMRGiReinis. Heteteaed 88:6 the Supreme Court case of BANK OF ee eee TH CHARGE D’AFFAIRES OF IVORY.COAST EMBASSY IN SIERRA LEONE Mis. App. 8/82. Bie therefote is asking for a variation of the order for a stay on terms, ‘Qn the point of leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, he submitted that the ‘proposed gromid of appeal disclosed a prima facie good grounds of appeal. On the point of the order of the 16" June,2000, he submitted that the order is a final order arid that the fifa was in place, ‘Mr. Banda Thomas in reply referred us to Exhibit DSV/1 the order of the 16" une, 2000 extiibited to the affidavit of Dunstan Samuel Vincent and paar ocean ‘order and that he had taken steps by ¥.W2:to show-sufficlenteaise why execution should not be levied. The mptionisstllpending before the leamed judge in the court below, when the applicant proceeded to execute a fifa for the recovery of the sum in DSVI nay hob ction heart. of the application before us is what i in fepretation 130 b ca the order of the 16" June, 2000. Mr. Banda Tos i ese nts the ofler contended that the order is nota final order. Mr: Terry on the other hand said that the order is final. ‘To resolve these two “contending positions, I shall start by giving the definition and the authoritative interpretation by emineut jurists of a final judgment or order and interlocutory judgment ot order.

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