Mojibola Bal-Adams v Simah Kamara And Another (MISC APP 2 of 1995) [1995] SLCA 4 (9 February 1995)

i} CO i | &\

| Misc, App 2/9 INTHE COURT OF pppe BE COURT oF pppeas FOR SIERRA LEONE \' BETWEEN: RA LEONE / pierre BAL-ADAMS | P (ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTA’ 2 ESTATE OF ISHMAEL CHARLES PRAT a . - APPELLANT/APPLICANT AND | ay SIMAH KAMARA || (ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE | | OF LAHAI KAMARA) ll & | ALHAT WURIE JALLOW _ RESPONDENTS " conam: | THON MR JUSTICE M 0 ADOPaY “JA | HON MR. JUSTICE GGELAGA KING = «JA . | HON MR JUSTICE AS TRABO oJA | | dee | ' | RULING DELIVERED ON THES _DAY_ GP FEBRUARY, 1995 | G SALAGASING TA: The Applicart, by Notice of Motion dated the itth cay of | Jsanary, 1995, seuwed this Court for ou ordor, iter alia, that che Agpelisnt dn che uaticr | | intited CivAgp 41/89 and the Pieintiif in. te High Court cefion C.C4™/83 "be given | | iesve io amend the writ of eummona dated 22nd “0, 1935, ie the meuner underlined cod i | inthe copy of she writ of summons exhibited to “he affidavit iz support. The reesosdents | opposed te epplicztion. . : cy i Connoe tor the Applicant submited that purely i the light of the new evidence this Cour | q ee aed ve. jt would be ia the interest of justice to amend the writ | alowed the respondents to adduce, it would be jad ; | of summons in sie manner indicated to enable this Court, —— - completely 2 | | a terests : sons i ina thi erally. The res} on || adjudicat: upon and settle afl questions involved in this peal a mn eiaikes oul on the other hand, submaitted that to allow the amendmen aoa ct |, when this matter was instituted in the High Court the Applicant had no jocus sts” ha | not even this amendment will cloak the Applicrnt aa depen Se evi eats | Ke vested the estste to the Lencheunes ane’ 7 as Blais saan ipsa ‘a Power of Attomey ‘0 act on behalf of the co-beneficiaries. } . 5 ih ariee for determination are whether this It seems to me that the principal questions wh : i ttt has, vhethor it ie in the dntecest of |) Cont has power to grant the amendaicn os - ict Tahell sofer $9 4.31 of this, Court's Sutice to grant it. ‘To answer the fret 406 oe vag alia, Saat Guis Couri “vagy from time to rules, PN. No 29 of 1995. That rule proves, 5 ‘the ead gestion ix controversy in the titte make any order nzcesnary Set ee dicdon spar the whcte proceedings as if tke *ppeal......and generally stall have & fui jarissict -

t ae |

| |, proceedings had been instituted | | This Cour, th erefore, not only hg roseeuted in ths Court 2s a Court of ; | ||. the High Court. There is a similar mene PPSlate powers but first instance...” i \ ae similar provision j : has also all the powers of jo the rubric: Amendment of trial an, pleack in the White Book of 1960, 0.5859. Under | inherent power to order the Nn PBs ik is sated that “the Court of Amoea | |) Sraved and the dociaies pre Of the trial to be amended so as repre ae artes || under O. 24 r. 1 of the High Cone gilt te ali the rlcedines o be parcaded = fed | any stage of the proceedings sles that Coust and, a fortiod , this And | oO allow cither party to alter » this Court “may at | pleadings in such manner and on such tems Pepe OF amend his indorement or ' hemade ot may be neccesary for the prepors Gott i al such amendments hil controversy between the partis.” It is crystal cerry mS see: the real quertions in | abundant power to grant the amendment sought, |” ™ {teTfore, that this Court haa j T now tum to the next question: whether it is in the interest justi | amendment. The guiding principle of cardinal iopertance here of justice to grant the | k of the H.C.R.(supra) that all such amondancaan nce is to be found in O. 24 r. 1 ae noes ct cught to be made for the | determining the real question in contr ‘ we ne Enpoes, of q : ‘ ‘oversy betwein the Pattics to any proceedings correcting any defect or exror in any procecdingy In this regard, I am guided =< pale an Sega dictum of Bowen L., which I scoopt md adopt in fe cae of | | | Cropper v._Smith (4884) 26 ChD. 700 at 719,711: “T think it ¥ : | principle that the object of courts is to decide the rights of the rice, Preteens | H | them for mistakes which they make in the conduui of their cases by deciding beanies | \ than in accordance with their rights, .. know Of no kind of exror or mistake which, if not a Saudulent or intended to overreach, the court cught not to comet, if # can be dons | | without injustice to the other party. Courts do ne: exizt for the sake of disciptine, but for i | the sake of deciding matters in controversy and { do not regard such amendment as a | matter of favour or grace... It nocms to me thst 23 soon as it eppears thet tho wey in | || Which a party has framed his case will not fecd to a decision of the rest maiter in | || Controversy, it is nich a matter of right on his part to have it corrected, if it can be done || Without injustice, as anything clio in tho case in a matter of right,” Much the same thing bad been said by Bramwell L.J. in the entlice osoe of "Tidesley v. Harner (1878) 10 Ch. | >' D.393 at 396: “ey practice has always been to give leave to amend unless I have been Satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide or that, by his blunder he had done Some injury to his opponentwhich could not be compensated for by costs or otherwise.” Counsel for the respondents stated quite franlly that he was not suggesting rnsla fides on | the part of counsel for the applicant. It is my contidered opinion that the several objections __ taised by the respondents are not matters of injustice but could be properly considered to "be matters of defence. In my judgement, the anendments i atke || Purpose of determining the real question of céntroversy between the tae ba ori 7] A 3 can, cleas faving regard. to the principle, infest elpubline us nls Lia peter | be made ithout injusti the other side can be gen ot hi 2 » desy can be “ . . | desire, and the respondents compensat: TWould accordingly make the following orders:- i ..

if Ort ig I, 33 1, That leave be granted to the shi 2ad June, 1985, in the manner chore send the virit of summons herein dated |_ exhibited to the affidavit in support, ‘ed in the copy of the writ of summons TFT | ets etpntoa on it |

2. That the ‘mi Be delivered and fled within 3 daya ofthe date of tha onder Wy) |]

3. That leave be granted to the respondents ‘ | i saa to deliver and file i | so desire, within 3 days of the vervice aa them of dis amended writ hey |

4. That the costs of and occassioned by the amendinent be the respondens’ in any event.

{| — HON MR JUSTICE G GELAGA KING JA ii f ~ Mh US » HON MR JUSTICE M. O ADOPHY, J.A.

(Presiding) | sar | ws HON MR JUSTICE A. B. TIMBO J.A. | h i F oa © i .

i { i

{ a |

i

i j

Bi |