Momodu Dowa v Chief S. Kateu & Ors (SC CIV APP 11 of 1981) [1982] SLSC 5 (14 July 1982)

1). mup surnnis cour of sxemna tans a : e CORAM: | ah rE enc ae R hy . ‘The Hon. Mrs,Justice A.V.A. Awunor-Renner = J.S.Ce "a . The Hon. Mr, Justice S, Beccles Davies = IS ta : seed” ond uwrideanr: <1 i CHIEF SAMUKA KATEU & ORS. = RESPONDENTS: | JUDGMENT he v anche 8 L> byte RelA, Hi onl | Saabs area dn the Eastern Province, The parties to the dispute are the H (the Appellants") ("Respondents" Sisk | people of Mano Kortuhunjand the people of Kondnde Lowoma.the / a 1972 by the people of Lovoma against the people of Mano 4 b authority, The disputed bush is situated between the two a) : * neard by the Nongowa Local Court between May and November, 1972+ Secument was given in favour of the people of Konende Lovona tn } : fovenver, 1972+ The people of Mano Kortwhimy appedied:to the a cocay uooai Appes) Court at Kenny The appeal was heard by the | 1 + Uppoet tne court aovonpenied by the partion and theks witnesses : ae ine tend in aieputes Thy Court delivered Judgment in | . seners 1973, silowing the appee! and avarding compensations | P to the people of Mano Kortullum, The people of Konende Lovona a vas presided over by Mes sO, Taju Deon, then Princtpa ; R aciotrate , ansiated by two ausensors, The hearing of the ‘ CRTs da tonnes 97 at conten syns § : Pevseasy

wheh the assessors gave their opinions; In the coursy of the Rearing the Court visited the land in dispute on two separate occasions. “The Magistrate delivered Jjudgnent on 22nd October, 1975 confirming the decision of the Group Locel Appeal Court but making a supplementary order in relation to a pertion of the Land in dispute, aoe -# the people of the Mano Kortuliig)'being agerieved by the Aecision of the District Appeal Court appealed to the Local Appeals Division of the High Court, ‘The complaint of the appellants was directed against the supplementary order made by the District Appeal Court, The order of that Court was in the following terms: 7 "In accordance with $,33(1)(m) & (f) of Act No,20 of 1963, the District Appeal Court confine the decision of the Group Local Appeal Court with the foltowing supplementary order! From Lovona _ up to Dotey stroans from Botey to the path of the palm tree (1.0, the palm tree pointed during our second Ipcus-in-quo) to be returned to the : people of Lovoma as claimed by thon as it had been previounly given them by the people of Mano Kortuiu® and they bad been working on it for aor 25 years nov, The District Appeal Court 1# not going to upset the decision of the 7 Group Appeat Court, but the evanp after road : leading to the palm tree should go to the people of Mano Kortuhun and all lands from the palm tree leading to Mano Kortuhu.q belongs to the sy people of Nano Kortultum No onder as to costa, | Bach party bears ite ovn conta." te wii be useful to set out the grounds of appeal reiied «on by the people of Mano Kortuhiusn in their appeal to the Local - appeats Divieton of the iltgh Court, Thay were a9 followss- [Deveese

"(a) The supplementary order made by the | District Appeal Court is inconsistent with and derogatory of the decision of the Group Loa Appeal Court, a decision which the District Appeal Court expressly stated it . vas confirming.

i (») The supplementary order is wrong in law | in that in effect, it upturns and subverts the | very decteton which the District Appeal Court stated 1¢ was confirming.

.

(8) The said supplementary order is wrong and | unreasonable and cannot be supported having I

The appeal wae heard by Golley J. (a0 he then was) sitting | with two assessors, at Kenema in May, 1978. Judgment was le delivered in Decenber, 1978 allowing the appeal and setting i aside the supplenentary order made by the District, Appeal Court. [&

v The people of Kom@nde Lowoma being dissatisfied with the u

Geoision of the Local Courts Division of the iligh Court appealed

° .te the Court of Appeal, The appeal was heard by the Court of

Appeal (Marcus Cole, Navo and Turay JJ.A) in October, 1980, The ©

main contention of the appellant in the Court of Appeal was that

over court and that the District Appeal Court, had acted within |

Ate povere An varying the decteton of the Group Loval Appeat RK

Court, Judgnent was delivered in October, 1981 allowing the -

appeal.

il ‘The people of Mano Kortuhun have now appealed to this ' appellants, Learned Counsel on both sides argued all of them i before uss However it 1s unnecessary to deal with them individually. It will be sufficient to deal with the two

* qmportunt issues raided by the appeal, nemely ~ 3

(4) Whether the order-made by the District Appeal Court was indeed « Supplementary

Order

i

(44) Whether the evidence supports the supplementary order made by the District Appeal Court. With regard to the firet Lesue it will be recalled that in making ‘iti: vidas’ data ‘anc! Gdsowh's, 915 Uateded above) ‘ene moagis Sarr sort Folied on Seotion 33(1) of the Local Courts sets 1963- That subsection rendas~ "93() on an appeal any Appeal Court may ~ | 2 a) confirm the judgnent, order or i + sentence of the Court belows (b) substitute for the Judgment, : order or sentence of the Sourt below i any judgment, order or sentence which . Anatances | {e) remit the onse to the original i court or any other court of similar i Jurisdiction for rehearing; k: (ahaa oe anda 83 COU a | the proceedings both in the Appeal i Court and in the Courts below as may. be = juste 7 (0) exercise any powers which might lawfully have been oxercined by the Courts velows ! (4) make any such aupplenentary or r ; of the case may require." | Le Sedsctctuntnatein nterasin vith acetos'Ss vj all | (£) of Act 0.20 of 1963" 4t confirmed the decision of the Group | Appeal Court ‘with the following supplementary order." In other =~ vorda, the Court, acting under subsparagraph (1jlaj, conftreed the judgnent of the Group Appeal Court, and acting under subparagraph (1) (FJ, made supplementary order, ‘The Judge in the - Local Appeals Division of the High Court hol thint the effect of the supplementary order made by the District Appeal Court was te [Secee0

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