Magid Basma & 8 Others v Hassan Baydoun & Sons (CIV APP 41 of 2014) [2019] SLCA 31 (2 April 2019)

CIV APPEAL NO41/2014 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SIERRA LEONE BETWEEN , MAGID BASMA - APPELLANTS ( HAIDAR ISHMAEL “AMER MOKANNA HUSSEIN ANTAR ALIEU OSMAN THOMAS FADLU THOMAS ABDUL L THOMAS LAMBRIATU ALGHALI (NEE Thomas) ADAMA THOMAS AND HASSAN BAYDOUN & Sons - RESPONDENTS, JUDGMENT Delivered By:- Hon Musu D.KAMARA JA dobed th 24 Apel 2019 This is an Appeal brought by way of Notice of Appeal filed on the 31% of July 2014, by the Apellants against the Judgment of Edwards J as he then was delivered on the 29" day of May 2014. PROCEEDINGS IN THE HIGH COURT By writ of summons dated the 15" of November 2013, the plaintiffs herein now Respondents commenced an action against the 1-4 Defendants seeking the y following reliefs

E 54

1, Immediate recovery of possession of portions of the premises situate lying and being at No168 Pipeline, Spur Road Freetown in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone, occupied by the defendants (now Appellonts).

2. Mesne profits,

a

3. Any further relief/s that this Honourable Court may deem fit and just. and

4. Costs

(Alhaji Abdul Osman Thomas (hereinafter referred to as the deceased intestate) had died on the 28th of May 2009 intestate siesed inter alia of the property herein the subject of this action. Jurainatu Kaimondo Sonsiama (nee Thomas) and Torahim Osman Thomas, two of the next of Kins of the deceased intestate took out Letters of Administration in respect of the estate of same and proceeded to sell the premises situate at 168 Pipeline Spur Road the subject of this action which formed part of the Estate of the deceased intestate as Administratrix and Administrator respectively to-te-respondents-herein. A Conveyance dated 21 May 2012 expressed to be made between Mrs Jurianatu Kaimondo Sonsiama (nee Osman Thomas) and Mr Ibrahim Osman Thomas (the said Administrators) as vendors therein, registered as No 1042/12 in volume 689, at poge 106 of the records books of conveyances kept in the office of the Administrator and Registrar General in Freetown was executed and registered in favour of the respondents. When the respondents sought to take possession and evict the tenants the Ist- ‘4"defendants/now appellants praying for the reliefs as set out above, the 5** -9' defendants/Appellants asked to be joined in as parties. By a Court Order dated 19™ December 2013 the 5" -9" Appellants were joined as parties to the action. The case was adjudged to be considered under point of law and the court posed the following questions for determination viz, “Whether in light of the provisions of section 21(1) of the Administration of Estates Act Cap 45 of the Laws of Sierra Leone 1960 which states: “No land forming part of an Intestate shall be sold by the official administrator or any % administrator without the consent of all persons, beneficially interested, or the order of the Court or judge thereof for thet purpose first obtained,” ‘having not |

bo obtained the consent of all the beneficiaries as claimed by the defendants, the plaintiff's could be said to have obtained an indefeasible title to the property situate lying and being at 168 Pipeline, Spur Road Freetown sold by the administrators of the Estate of Osman Thomas (deceased Intestate’) ? Put in - other words, Whether the purported sale of premises situate at No 168 Pipeline, ‘Spur Road Freetown is valid in law? Whether the premises situate at 168 Pipeline, (Spur Road Freetown still forms part of the Estate of Osman Thomas (deceased ) intestate ? Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to possession of all that piece and parcel of land ond hereditaments situate lying and being at 168 Pipeline Spur Road Freetown, in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone * It is in the answering of these questions that the learned Hon Justice 0.8. Edwards J, as he then was, adjudged on the 29" May 2014 in favour of the Respondents that the respondents had obtained an indefeasible title to the property : that the sale by the administratrix and administrator to the respondent could not be invalidated or made void ab initio notwithstanding the lack of consent of all the beneficiaries and an order of court being first obtained and that the respondents were bonafide purchasers for value without notice, Consequently the court ordered as follows 1, Immediate recovery of possession of portions of the premises situate lying and being at No16B Pipeline, Spur Road Freetown in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone, occupied by the defendants(now Appellants )

2. Mesne profits from 2013 until delivery of possession at the rent payable under the old tenancy

3. Costs to be taxed Tt is against this Judgment that the oppellants have now appealed, The first ground is that the learned judge erred in law and misdirected himself when he held that the Respondents had obtained the indefeasible title to the property the subject matter of this Appeal notwithstanding the lack of consent of all the beneficiaries of the estate of Alhaji Abdul Osman Thomas (deceased > intestate) for the sole of the property or an order of court being first obtained for the sale of the said property

| a Particulars i) Having held that all the beneficiaries of the estate of deceased infesiate never consented to the sale of ‘the property the subject matter ™ x of this Appeal, the learned judge was wrong to have held that the vendors, the administratrix and administrator respectively of the said property hod a valid title to the said property to pass to the respondents ( ji) That the learned judge erred in law and in fact and was wrong to have held that Ibrahim Thomas and Jurainatu Kaimondo Sonsiama (nee Thomas) had taken Letters of Administration in respect of the estate of the deceased intestate that made them owners of the legal estate in so far as the property the subject matter of the Appeal is concerned hence they can pass valid title to the respondents, iii) The construction placed on section 21(1) of CAP45 by the learned Trial Judge failed to appreciate or appreciate fully that taking out letters of administration does not ipso facto confer title on the administrators to property comprising the estate of the deceased intestate. On the above, I would scy Title of the Administrators to sell is not based on consent or lack of consent; the consent to sell is an administrative requirement which even if absent does not nullify the title to the property. It is whether the deceased owner Alhaji Abdul Osman Thomas had a good title so that what the administratrix & administrator obtained when they stood as personal representative was a good title that mattered as to whether they obtained an indefeasible title and passed on same. There was no issue of the deceased owner not being the owner of the property in question or he having a bad title. Administrators are personal representatives and next of kins of the deceased. When they assume the office at his death they attain what the deceased had before he died, the legal estate, which even if they intend to pass to themselves must be by a vesting Deed from Administrators as legal owners/personal representative to the Administrators as beneficiaries. There cannot therefore be doubt that what they attained having obtained the Letters of administration of ? 17" November 2010 and made administratrix and administrators respectively, was

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