Lucy Decker & others v Goldstone E.Decker (MISC APP 13 of 2002) [2002] SLCA 17 (9 July 2002)

vse, APP 13/2002 IN THE C1 F APPI

ggTWEEN:

4, MRS LUCY DECKER

2) GISBORNE DECKER (JNR)

3. OLIVE DECKER

4. GERSHON DECKER, _ APPLICANTS

AND

GOLDSTONE DECKER 1" RESPONDENT * (arr

Coram

HON MR JUSTICE E.C, THOMPSON-DAVIES JSC

HON MR JUSTICE A. N. B. STRONGE JA

HON MR JUSTICE G. GELAGA KING JA 7 A. Serry-Kamal, Esq, with him, S.M. Sesay, Esq. for the applicants. . Anthony R. Brewah Esq., for the respondent

RULING DELIVERED ON THE 9™ DAY OF JULY 2002 HON MR JUSTICE G. GELAGA KING J A: Mrs Lucy Decker, the frst applican: Der and the sistern-law of Goldstone Decker, the respondent. was ee tae ior Decker, the younger brother of Goldstone Decker. She and i prereg pobr Chidren, namely, Gisborne Decker (nr), Olive ‘Decker and Ger eet ce of the hr and fourth applicants respectively. The chien arg the nephews oo "espondent. Mrs Lucy Deckers husband died on the 11° day’ J On Decker and wi tne 28” day of July, 1999, Goldstone Decker issued & - aaa redial saber ® three children elarming, inter alia, a deciaration thet IT at ving, is owned ‘ate at 21, Old Raiiway Line, Freetown, where the spicata. Te case was heard Xin, He further elaimed immediate possession Of 16 TET as delivered in favour of the High Court and on the 18” day of Apri 2002, judgenter mediate possession of the ponttone Decker granting him the declaration sought and ror a stay ot exeauton Senay: Thereafter, the applicants applied the cout ged with costs on the 13" day Atay pon gPPea! ‘against the judgment, but this was 5 cout a notice of ni befor ne applicants had lace lia, the Court, t ‘claim, for, inter alia, 22n dated the Bday of May i Ge abunaant cau Es stayed pending the SLES thatthe exooution of the judgement of, 18" APT ion was supported by the Mdgg2%9 determination of the appeal her gay and opposed By that of the | Ss of the 1 applicant and her solicitor,

- Mo | We gave the applicants j 2otiag and Omissions In ther a eaNe 2 fle oy caries an their papers and ne SoD aca ip Sune 2002. ‘matter was fnany heard panes A] sesay, for the applicants, acknowied, W cess tigant of the fruits of hie iudvemeat Wi Court wil ot, a8 a nde rata says usually granted in cases where the rte" MEN! on to suey, SaBWe 8 sre special circumstances which warrant @ say (cant convinces the Court that thecp | eunstances| he referred strenuously to certain fate eo 2 S38 Principle of spmecy, | suppor: Thal the respondent in December 1981 nash, e864 10 in the afssec, | eiove fom rented premises at 30A Victora Suet fced 1 sppkeants hastars te propery Now in dispute; that the 1* appicant and henge” © 21 Old Railway tne, guts ol money repairing the disputed property, bought sea NS exDened args > a repeny nony coich® apelcants; that tis now any seas ery Pat oD fo inthe property may catch “pneumonia children floning unreported cases and cher deadly cseaser’. He prayed ina Misc App 2/94 AFRICANA TOKEH Vi SOLID TSICANA TOKEH VILLAGE LTD v, JOHN OBEY DEVELOPMENT Civ. App. 31/81 ADAMA MAN ARAY Wise. App. 16/73 S.M. SACCOH v. and aso Halsburys Laws of England, ny ‘ed. para. 51 p35. mat Srewah, for the respondent, vehemently opposed the application. He ‘submitted inlterey goat cifcumstances had been shown to warrant ths Court exercising ts metered Ciscretion in favour of the applicants and granting a stay of execution, He alse ARCHIBAr, C2828 cited by the applicants, but referred to Misc. Apo. 28/93 REV. HCHIBALD GAMBALA JOHN V. ABU BLACK & ORS (unreported) in which this frei fefused a stay. He further submitted that in this type of application, the Grounds of coco must show Prima facie good grounds of appeal and opined that that was not the in this instance. "seems to me that in err - the that in arriving at a decision, the crux of the matter is whether ara have shown convingng ‘special circumstances to enable this Court to grant a through Principle of ‘special circumstances’ is now flowing, with increasing mee ‘icy 2PBlications for a stay of execution and the ingenuity with which special umstances i imagination. To give a few examples: Pheumoances Nave been invented boggles the imagi to disputed Dropeny i Geadly diseases; inducement to move from rented prope Shop nthe Bropery ond huge expenses in repairing part of disputed propery; ment most of the ater rele otaining a Business Registration Certificate. In my judgement HS ne “wes geet ON in the affidavits in support as special creumetances, "ern oO Wl be ‘Sed in the pleadings which were deatt with Lode ‘up when the appeal is dues “Bued in the pending appeal. They are bes! in the context of @ stay of "Reiton Ney are not, | opine, special circumstances What th of execution? : ext of @ stay of ‘te ag We mean by special circumstances inthe cont CA rel tat ‘eter the geno ‘this question it is well to bear in eas ‘satisfied that there are good LW forget Curt nor this Court wil grant a St UTES Tested in THE ANNOT (1896)°,0°%"9. This follows from the basic PINS ' ractice of dept zits “eens SLALP. 144, p.416 that the Court oes roan eppea “C20d | "ant of the fruits of his judgement:

a — , “3- IB ‘ | in glove with ‘special circumstances’ Viewed catarg fy ereumstances beyond the usual: a Thuaton ergs, Seca Greumatances fost meer seal run of things. AS | said in Afrcana TokeW’s ease, sane rs one von 6% bxng before the Court the facts on which he res fore Goat See i ny consi special crcumstances and, of couse, each cossen nee E merits”. ‘depend on judgement, the only special circumstances in the atidavis 1 ee special relationship between the partes ~ a rlatonshp tenenr tor wemage and consanguinity. The 1" applicant, now a widow, was the lawtul wedded ‘nse respondents brother and consequently the sisterinsaw ofthe respondent's we ye and 4” applicants aie the children ofthe respondents late braer and the ‘hs ve and niece ofthe respondent's. This family relationship is distinct rom te greet TZonly of the usual cases where the Itigants are strangers in the sense that they are we elated either by marriage, or consanguinity, or at all. But for this pecular and | “Neriding and special circumstance, | would have been disinined to exercise my Secretion in favour of the applicants and grant a stay. The intimate family relationship is 4s special circumstance and affords good reason for the exercise of our discretion in ‘evour of granting a stay, for in such ‘@ case justice demands that the status quo be preserved until the appeal is heard and determined. For all these reasons, | have decided to allow the application on terms. | make the ‘lowing orders:-

1. Astay of execution is granted on terms pending the hearing and determination of the , Speatheren 2 That the appeal ily heard 3 That the Reord eet setled within one week of the date of this order. {That the conditions of appeal be fixed within ong week of the date of Sond Thane applcants fue conto of eFPea Winn four weeks Je. Is Thatthe appeal be fixed for hearing on the 3S ‘September 2002. {, Thatthere be costs in the cause. iberty to apply. noua TA Hon Mr Justice Modena 7 5 3, J.8.C- 8100 Kome . 6, Thompson-Daves pen bee ; - pronge, A. ee Bs nr Justice A. NB. Sto