Momoh Dowu v Chief Samuka Kateu & ORS (SC CIV APP 11 of 1981) [1981] SLSC 4 (18 October 1981)

ae #4 x |B -| Be Yom Hep tegen Bb rere tnlee Ora POET a ‘ aH The Hon, Hr, Justice CA, Harding = 98.06,P TE ory 4 The Hon. Hrewustion A.VeAs Aminor-Reaner - Ju8.Ce 7 ] & ‘The Hon, Mr, Justice S, Beccles Davies = 3.8.0. rod < |B The Hon, Mrs Justice S.C.s Yarne = dete | a bes Oke. Apps Hos 11/81 ma ips MOMOH Dowu = APPELLANT | and vik + ater sumnea xarev 4 ons. = vasromnms | k Garvas J. Dette, Foas for the Appediant ‘ | [HBL | + bee nan, Joke Smart for the Respondent d Ee r vn n 1 1 gud —| Beat cata on [Fe] OW. | grebeete aT Hart Sopccn concerne a dispute relating *; lie | tn the Bastern Province, The parties to the dispute are the agit: TB) |e rents ot none kore Pe of xonnte tose any Hi” let Agtion vas fret inetituted in the ongova Local Court n March, i ql 1972 by the people of Lovoma against the people of Mano | at Kortuhn for planting in their bush (Lee. farm land) without ee at suthority, ‘The Glsputed bush 1s situated between the te 4 i i |: villages 4.0, Komende Lowana and Mano Kertehun, The action was | a " neard by the Nongowa Local Court betveen Hay and November, 1972. | ie Judgnent wae given in favour of the people of Komende Lovona in a a November, 1972, The people of Mano Kortdhiny appecied:to the |S ie Group Local Appeal Court at Kenfiin, ‘The appeal was heard by the TPE | xenonn tn septemory 1979;L' the course of the hearing of the | ies +" Brent the court asconpanied by the partion and their witnesses ee wlekted the Land in dispute, Thy Court delivered judgment in | | ae December, 1973, allowing the appeal and avarding compensations | Be 3 to the people of Mano Kortuhun, The people’ of Komende Lovona hal: E appealed to the District Appeal Court, ‘The District Appeal Court, | q el. vas pronided over by Hr. W.0, Taju Deen, then Principal : Bi Magietrate , ansisted by tvo nesessors, The hearing of the | LaBRU\: . foarveas commenced in Novenbor, 1974 and conciuted/asth Juty,1975 | ie Parsee)

= when the assessors gave their opinions, In the course of the 6 | it hearing the Court visited the land tn dimpute on evo separate Pale ovenstons, The Hagiatrate delivered Judgaent on 22nd October, | 1975 confirming the decision of the Group Local Appeal Court & « i the Land in dtepute. . 4 -# The people of the Mano Kortutligg) being aggrieved by the B decision of the District Appeal Court appealed to the Local | i Appeats Diviston of the High Court, The complaint of the ih al appeltants was directed against the supplementary order made by | eal the District Appeat Court. The order of that Court vas an the | i | foltowing termes I | aq "In accordance with $.33(1)(a) & (f) of Act No.20 | || i | aetrsasi ene oroariee ateeea fastest Enc bs iH aa the following supplementary order: Pron Lovena ‘E | i a up te Botey stroamy from Botey to the path of ey |e the palm tree (1.0. the palm treo pointed during ! a Pane ceca acetate oteenal tal cee coe people of Jovonn as claimed by them as it had NG Be boon previously given them by the people of Cae iW a for asr 25 years now, The District Appeal ak Li ql Court 4» not going to upset the decision of the | fi at Leading to the palm tree should go to the people j a | tree leading to Mano Kortuh@belongs to the | ae sj meena. deans miveabiar Hs) ardsr en 46,coste. ie 4 Raoh party bears its ovn coste.® x in It will be useful to set out the grounds of appeal relied 4 q Xi om by the people of Mano Kortukuim in their appeal to the Local eH Appenis Division of the iligh Court, They were as follower eo iF a DBaveeee ‘Ae HEN

(a) The supplementary order made by the Bl District Appeal Court 4s inconsistent with i" and derogatory of the decision of the Group Local Appeal Court, a decision which the i a" District Appeal Court expressly stated it Bai was contirmine. < 1 (®) The supplementary order 4s wrong in law H cn in that in effect, it upturns and subverts the | iB Very decision witch the District Appeal Court |] i | bates) ivtcnelcheriemieed es

(2) The eatd supplementary onder Le wrong and iii 3 unreasonable and cannot be supported having b | ie i ‘he sag ual eth eth 96 bss bs bs we | j BE “Ath two assessors, at Kenema in May, 1978. Judgment was Be | he | delivered in December, 1978 allowing the appeal and setting i | | |] setde the supplonentary onder made by the District, appeal Court. [f | | | vy The people of Kondnde Lowoma being diswatiatied with the |! i 4 Aeciston of the Local Courts Division of the Iitgh Court appested i | main contention of the appellant in the Court of Appeal was that | any appellate court has Jurindiction to vary the decision of a | Va lover court and that the District Appeal Court had acted vithin | oa Court, Judgeent was delivered in october, 1981 alloving the

4 i ‘The, poeple of Mano Kortufiun have nov appeaied to thie i | i | appedlants, Learned Counsel on both sides argued ali of them | aN before wey Hovever 1¢ 4s unnecessary to deal with them ae | individuatty. Tt wid be sufficient to deal vith the two | aes) |. important issues raided by the appeal, namely ~ Li By |.

(4) Whether the order made by the District | ae r Appeal Court vas indeed a Supplementary | eh, | order ae a Moves re ir | rhe a:

(44) Mnecher the evidence supports the 82, supplementary order made by the 4 District Appeal Court, ~ 4 With regard to the first iseue it will be recalled that in H i aking its order dated 22nd October, 1975 (quoted above) the . q Deageis Bransyrt stes pee 33(1) of the Locat Courts Hl ie cee a "93(4) on an appeat any Apposi Court may = j 4 > (a) confére the Sutgnent, enter or ; q . sentence of the Court below; | |e nents, 1 | order or sentence of the Court below 1 | ie any Judgment, order or sentence which j ah instances | | i i | (o) remit the case to tie original by eel | court or any other court of similar Ve i ce | Jurisdiction for rehearings ki 1B nee are ee asia | | a | Court and in the Courts below as may. be LH | ie junts ie (e) exercise any povers which might i aH (€) make any such supplementary or as : ay consequential orders as the justice H : of the case may require." j al The Oourt stated that "in accordance with Section 33 1(a) amt | fe a | Appeal Court "with the following supplementary order," In other ae words, the Court, acting under sub-paragraph (1)(a), confirmed a Ste tibet: Saari Adank Week, oe wohl cota mmm A if paragraph (1) (f), made a supplementary order, The Judge in the i ak Local Appeaig Division of the High Court held that the effect of ee the supplementary order made by the Dintrict Appent Court was te ies | [sites | teh | Ae | *. ; BE

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