Madam Ballu Yillah v Mohamed Hedjazi (SC CIV APP 3 of 1981) [1983] SLSC 20 (12 July 1983)

7A_THD SUDREN® COURT oF srERRA LeoNE

Coram

‘The Hon, Ke, Justice B, Livesey Luke C.J. - Presiding ‘ The Hon, Mr, Justice CsA, Harding = 58.0. ; ‘The Hon, lire.Justice A.VeA, Avunor-Ronnor ~ 5.8.0. The Hon, Hr, Justice 8, Beccles Davies ~ J.8.Ce The Hon, Mr. Justice Constant S, Davies = J.As SC, CIV APP. 3/31 Madan Badin TaLteh —- Aagataeas 77) 4 And % Mohamed Hed jazi = Respondent g Borthan Macauley, (Jr.) Bog. for the Respondent QUPGMENT DELIVERED THIS 12TH DAY,OP JULY, 1983 Begeles Daviess J.S.Coi- | ‘This appeal concerns land at Signal Hill Road Wilberfores 1» the Western Area, The reopondent was the plaintiff in the High Court wailet the appellant was the defendant, the respondent had dseued a writ in the High Court olaiming npossossion of ali that pivce or parcel of land situate and being off Signal Hi11 Road, ¥ilberforce and for an injunction restrain ing the defendant or her servant or agents from trespassing on the said land.” The land 6 described as being bounded on the wortn-Bast by property of Zeaas John Bright 235 feet; on the Soutn-Bast by pronerty of Zoaae John Bright 245 feet} on the south-Bast ty r-upes+) of Nea, Tonner Shoraff 225 feet; on the North-North-Wost by property of N.S, Mustapha 96.9 feet and 227.5 feet respectively. . he defence filed on behalf of the appellant had averred'\— inter alfa that the land desoribed by the respondent in his state ment of elain was "not the piece and parcel of land owned" and in her possessions and further that the land ovned by her had been in her full £00 and undisturbed possession since 1963 on the death of her father one Saidu Yi21a, The defence desoribed the eee peat Se eee ae

i |

Rand a2 being at Pipe Line Road, Wilberforce and bounded on the North by private property 110.58 feet and 89.36 feet respectives on the South 242.5 feet, 96.5 feet, and 83.3 fect respectivelys on the Bast 185.15 foot and 115,02 foot respectively; and on th West 36.49 feet, ‘That was the state of the pleadings vhen the matter went to trial, ‘The resvondent gave evidence at the trial, He told the i Court that ke had bought the land at @ public auction in 1955. ‘The and had been sold in consequence of an order of the then ~ Supreme Court (now High Court) empowering the Official Adminis— : trator (now Administrator and Registrar-General) to de so. Me had beon the highest bidder and 4t vas knocked down to him at the price of five hundred pounds, A deed of conveyance of the Jand had been executed in his favour, by the Official Administra-| tor, The doed of conveyance was put in evidence by him. It revealed that the 1and had formed part of the estate of William J. Powells. He explained how he had inspected the land 4n 1970 ' and had found some shacks on it which he had learné on enquiry, f had been erected by the appellant. k The appellant also cave evidence, She stated that she vas t Living at 7, Pipe Line, Wilberforce, She was the daughter of Saidu Y411ah who died in 1963, She had been born at 7, Pipe Lint t and had Lived there throughout her childhood, 7, Pipe Line f stood in a compound which had belonged to her late father and is presently to her, There vere over ten houses in the compound ~ t Bevba Se! Ysbh\ ieee’ bolt 07° bab’Gainah,’ bel’ 2e00' brothel ana i herself} and the rest by her children, In 1968 ahe had engaged the services of @ surveyor to survey the land, A plan was é prepared which was incorporated in a Statutory Declaration, The E Statutory Declaration was rogistered. e At the conclusion of the appellant's evidence, her counsel t applied for an amendment to her defence, The amendment wae for {the dnotusion of an additional paragraph to the defence,

ee

‘The application was granted. The new paragraph read = | "4, Alternatively, the Defendant says that the plaintite's claim is barred and Rds title, if any which 49 dented wae extinguished prior to this action by virtue of the provisions of the Limitation Act 1961", ‘The appellant then called a witness Yaysh Fofana who said he had boon living at 7, Pipe Line, Lower Signal Hi11 since 1947, He was present when the land was handed over to the appellant by the tribal Headman after the death of the appellant's father ~ Saida Yattah, At the close of the evidence at the trial, the appellant's defence was that (1) the land alleged by the respondent to be b his as act the same land as that deseribed by the appellant in her defences and (11) alternatively, the respondent's cleim was statute barred, ‘The appellant did not addue evidence at the trial in ‘ support of her contention that the land referred to by the ' respondent in his statement of claim and that referred to by her ‘ 4n her defence vere tvo diffovout lends, t ‘The matter however seemed at the end of the day to have rested on the Limitation hot 1961. X shall now refer to the provisions of the Limitation Act : 1961 which are germane to the instant case, They are sections t 5(3), 6(1), 11(1) and 15, Section 5(3) 1s in these terme:— : %5(3) No action shall be brought by any ' person to recover any land after the i ‘expiration of twelve years from the date é on which the right of action accrued to t him, or if it first acorued to some person f through whom he claims to that persons,..." é Seetion 6(1) then provides = . — I+

- T0~ “Whore the person bringing an action to Fecover land, or some person through whom he clains, has been in possession . thersef, and has while entitled thereto deen éispossessed or discontinued his Porsession, the right of action shall be dewmed to have accrued on the date of the 42epossession or discontinuance," Section 11(1) ataces - *No right of action to resover land ehall 2e deemed to accrue unless the land is in the possession of some person in whose favour the period of limitation can run (hereinafter in this section referred to as "adverse possession") and where under the provisions of this Act any right of action is deened to accrue on a certain Gate and no person is in adverse possession on that date, the right of action shall not be deemed to acuxu unless and until adverse possersion £8 taken of the land," Finally Section 16 exce7* "Subject to the provioions of section 8 of thie Act at the expiration of the period prearribed by this Act for any person to bring an action to recover land (including a redemption action) the title of that person to the land shall be extinguished," . Section 8 referred to above relates to settled land and land herd on trust.

Te appellant has therefore asserted that the respondent had been dispossessed of the land and thet she and her father had been | in adverse possession for a period ci at least 12 years before

IMevee

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