Motor & General Insurance Co. Ltd v P.C. 431 Arkurst & Anor (CIV APP 2 of 1975) [1976] SLSC 3 (1 January 1976)

er Be aioe - _———— —— es : aes: 3 Pe PS ee 7 A So peti . ne Tater up sre 2 > . i pdeestbe es «© IN Tis SUEMSHS COURT OF STisit.A LEONE . | a ee Eero Cae ha : Gees r oes . : 4 ae es LOW: ate : eee : f oem : 4 ies, ©.0.8, COLE, Chief Justice (Prosiang) : : pan aa B.C.4, BSTTS, Justice of the Supreme Court 5 a I 3c a. LEVESS8Y LUKE, Justice of the Supreme Court 4. te ie ° ee ; Seen S.J FOKSTEX, Justice of the Supreme Court F Peo. CLA. HARDING, Justices of Appeal . t BARES iy Beene a . Civil Appeal Now 2/74 . 4 FES go : 4 bieegetis DANISL K.- CAULEES - APPELLANT t ERE ante : os fone KOMBA KANGAIIA = RUSPONSENT, . q ETS : Sere ; ec ea 4 a a ces : DU nGHSENT 38TH JUNE, 1975 4 a SERS Sr, U.S. Marens Jones withshim J BOE Gervas cutts, Esq., for the Appellant fet 4 gee. 4 pees - ~ . 4 Behbes use Smich, Usq., for the liespondent. d Fieri " i: Reads . Ae SARS Coke, C.d.:- This is an appeal from the judyment of the Hi ee H by rota 1 é aa RES GRee Court vfappeal for Sierra Leone tated the 11th day of 4 3 etpeSe\ April, 1974, allowing the appeal from the judgment of ah AES > Si La (BoB warnc, Jo, davot tho 16th tay of sarc, 7973, in an Pee : oe : * a Sh UMMA® action in which the respondent in this Court was Stef , $) Heleg eS . coraiae: at . araces plaintiff and the appellant was defendant. The subject ji) F5 oH ee ° tif. 1 the appellaat lefenjant. The subject = ei EE Tos : &. Pes matter of the action touched and concerned certain oa 4 BEES oeemises at one time known as 41 Kainkordu Road, Koidu oh ae segs 4 gage Town, Kono District, but later came to be known as 83%" + So Main Kainkordu Road. There is no dispute between the 2 q aces oa « a Oey partics as te the identity of the premises in quostion. 4 pc I shall therefore in this judgment hereafter refer to yu (i) # 4 oMfeg rib] # : it as "the said promises," a ee a IONE, «ee ae t " a ee en

. 4 Soe i! «IY pn = ls 1g plese i | RES he i H Bee Baw By a specially indorsed Yrit of Summons dated the i 5g Pecieces u 1 4 GREE rTen tay of March, 1972, tho respondent claimed * 1 A ee: b r EEE S possessi.n of part of the said. premises, mesne profits B - iE es q EPR we the rate of Le.4O por month ant damages for trespass. % ae f . BS In his Particulars of Claim, he alloged, amongst other ue : oa He Geek £ ao HUE ES uninea, that at all times material to this actiun, he j Pg Pp ssesiets. E , Pate eae i ‘ 5 i = EE as the owner of the said premises and the appellant hy 8 faa: was in sccupation of part of the said premises, that a i 4g Soe é ' 3 Beara despite several demands hy the respondent since April, ‘ pened ji 4 fatale Shea : . Ea -OEGCE 1964, for the appellant to quit the said premises, the f . eee - : t a sefusvd to do so ! Ed ee appellant refuse:l to do so. 2 gees ros See The appellant by his amended Uefence disputed the oe fe coer traana . Peers, : ‘ - a Vewnershi; by the respondent of the said premises and 3 E Branreee . S a 3 ARES | 5 : d ee averrel in effect that he was the owner by purchase . ‘ Fi ooh of the said promises. To this the respondent joined ge : 4 Pe coon Ge fe SOMES! issue. . ‘ P q Bake 4 A, Pete | Tt is clear therefore that at the close of the mia ae EES Va oo Uypyee i pleadings, one of the main issues which had to be ie : hae. i ; een fdetermine! by the trial Judge was ownership of the ai is cer ees ee 4 SSE said prouises, ‘his naturally involves the question TRE } ; ad of title tu the said promises 4 Woon of title to the said promises. opel : a Hee ky.. a baie ‘ ¥ i Sess The trial came to an end on the 16th day of March, n . a 1 REARS : oh £ ‘Sepa 1973, when the learned trial Judge delivered his Pe Dan Gs j TMgises considered jutgment dismissing the respondent's claim ale x ee on the main ground that the evidence of the respondent abe Ts HEE ORS. aia not suppert the pleacings., It should be noted in 5 TEER S passing that thore had been provicus litigation between | ‘e. of E ER q : Weis the said sarties regarding the said promises before the : a os : ey aa j ; , ie Jea8 o7 Migh Court in 1968, the record of proceedings of which ch : Hake [AG UK, case was tendered in evidence in tio present case and sf: age Ee Bolt sabe ers Bi « i id ENGR, marke? exhibit 'A'. In tie former case, the appellant i SL ves plainei ff and the respondent was defendant. The wade e as Ae H . respontual in that cass raised the question of juris- vad : : ok : } a dieticn of the igh Court ts try that cass but was ay

v ae arias ‘ — eT Roig Beaty : i Bae . , Bee 3 . « \ £ ee ay ieee a BeePEO ovecrutol by the learacd trial Jule. ‘The Learned e ai 4 SBS verial duvige, however, after hearing evidence, e 2 Fle disuissed both the claim of the appellant and the fh viens : - a abe: count celaim of the responlent. There was no appeal & Fa neal f ¥ oe SERED acainse the judgment in that ease. Por the purpose + Reso of Unis present appeal, thesy facts are not very £ Pe a Lee saterial, except, perhaps, regarding the issue of

L oh Fron the judgment of ‘darne, J, dated.,the 16th £ gut Miarch, 1973, the respondent appoaje:d to the Court of ' YES Apel Tor Sierra Leone on three grounis, namely - . : si SEES | gaa "1, The learned trial Judge misdirected . q pail F Paton ; Ss Boe himself as to the nature of the 5 en . eet! 1 Ez ae appellant's counterclaim in the y age : 4 Rasa previous action belveen the same £ ted partiss absve aml vhich is cxhibit 4 BEES . Pca ' i PES: ‘Al in this qetion. : unas ~ ae

2. The learned trial Judye was wrong in ‘ ‘ees: En lay when he sain the appellant was PRESS ~. : SR as indireectiy using his Court as an . . : Eek : eee Appellate Court. i £ ELS 3. ‘The judgment is against the weight A ast oh. SESE . ua ” Pan a Nee of evidence. : : 7 . LEE fyiedivtos ee rt i aie! £ a Tho Court vf Appeal for Sierra Lecae in their ara Ry ERIE SEs: a ae {ee glistament dated the 11th day of Aprii, 1974, said, 7 “4 Be tee) E Rie j vee dnter alia . rar fae Bites “ig mallow the appeal ami set aside tie mae PGs cee seeision of the Court bolow dismissing : oe Eee a PRE the appellant's action vith casts. We ap He . + oye oriur that the cospantent within 30 « 7 ane lays ch deliver possession of the 2 If . “SS a ; yeums \ceupiel by him in the premises i : ; . formeriy Enow,s ag 41 Xainkerdu Mead, . + AA ee .

age eee ail eee : i , eo U5 co Poe p a ec ae 4 a «“ a wha | be “Age att one district, and now known as 83 2k ma, ad § ea Sadukor-fa Roawt, Hoidu Tsun, that the t ‘ ca EES ‘ ny 2 cae soomlunt du pay to the appellant : aa x oe ‘ hesagd profits at the cate of be.28 i . 4 BES cer wengem Crom the date of issue of : a ae wie dpi of Summons herein," " : ae Pe 1 4 ee, Who appoliant’ Weing dissatisfied with this i 1 i 4 pee Geauga sud ortoghas appealed to this Court on a . 4 So. meron of groumis. The First principal question posed . 4 ga for our c.nsidsration iss - . i . 4 eee uo Nether the igh Court of Sierra Leone Pt i fa i F Sisk inl any jurisdiction to entertain this H y Ree suit in view of ihe fact that the matter . i Z ae f } : | belueen the parties which the Court had 4 2 “aig ta determine was 4 question of title to i 4 ean lant in the Trovineés, ead whether the a ‘ 3 oe : § 4 olde eeiper Forum ought not’ ts have been tae # . ! a x : e ae luca Cuurt in tae Kono istrict." a way ; SS It sila be cbserved at the outset that om Bee See ee eta er ote “3S gos gyaminaticn Gf the recerd of proceetinys before the 4 Pe. nee cence nenae nore temp ttnen 4 . 4 Highs Courts? lorow this question of: jurisdiction was never $o SES Sy raised. Tam of the view, Rowever, that since the So ORAS pieadin.s Cofore the learnt trial Judge disclose ¢ Behe sufficient ‘anverial on which the issue of. jurisdiction i a Bee ON lic ta . Blue can be Masud, this Court ean progeriy entertain the | g (SRE question in spite of the fact Uml it was not raised of i: a Pieey in the Court's belew. I wholchenrtedly adept the views -4 pn oxpresse! in the Privy Council case of SHISF KWAME 4s : Rae agayt? ov, CHUBP Hears TavaT (1949) 1 WhO at page ge ye f or hy that = ° « i "TE At onpeared to an appellate court t i hi i tine an order against vaieh an asneab ae j foe Deoutht hat been sale without j i . ' Se a any

eS Ean ee Bae 2G * Ae : : , Bene: 3 we ; oe Be - Pe jurisdiction, it would nover be too ee EBS ca ae: late to adwié and Give effeet to the } ee oe plea that the order was a nullity.” a Eas . Bi ee Uo shall net confine this legal dectrine to orders ca saath AS a pnts E ey only but would excend it toe cover judgments or other ae 3 ees : oe AYSE. seibions cf any cuurt, This ought to be the case . ee y Hees for, in my considered view, jurisdiction is not only @ une qoherterennuer sore ant nse ? : ; BPRS tho dugal authority but it is also the extent of the ie Se. - A : x pe power of a oourt or judce to entertain an action, : a Sie oes oe sin ewe oe ‘ i ae pelition oF Olhee proceading. Jue consideration . : ; Sen q a SwaC ts be Given to at at auy stage - particularly . : es Bae weaieti 3 ee so whore that jucisdiction is conferret or taken away a Mae : : . 4 ae by statute. 4 hee ow, what is the gravamen of this principal F eee : q RES 4 ee question of jurisdiction caiswl by Learned Counsel for A a Baus + gee the apvellant? Ci is iis, Ne contends, amongst other 7 q Yass things, Chat in the first piace, from the pleadings it 4 se Ea ares is Glones that the said prauaiges was iand situated in g Bite - : wate ; ; ti q fhe the berinces;: sucondly, that the plesdings disclose a ae : : Ba ten that aie of the main issues dacue, J,, had to determine : 4 Pepe was the tithe -f sithur party to the said premises; . t bie : Ea BER : ‘= eee thirdly, that nc question of any title to a leasehold { 4 ane: grante! unler tie Provinces Land Act (Cap. 122) arose; , uf : ae am! instly, thet therefore the jurisdiction of the ! t: petataee { pian High Cour’ was custed by virsae of tig provisions of 4 etic - aatadyes ; } ye aa Beetion Fi(adli) of the Courts Act, 1965 (No. 31 of , E: “ents a ‘ Sy 1965). Phase contentions automatically eall for the | ~ ; Ber 1 2 ees consiruchisn of Secticas 1811) ami (2) aut 21(a)(i) of d . : ee ae ths Courts act, 1965 (sv the purposes of this appeal. | : Ratt Thos. Uirus sabsectious are as follows; 5 ¥ Eee 4 «< { Be "18.

(4) The Waist Court’ shall exercise i i ee the guristietion and powers esuferred j j ieee q i pean ij ¥ er Coc ae

| Sa ois Fe TT Te a ee : ; oP Soe! iyi Phe 3D NS eee Mea JV hae i 3 Hesse. 6. i Neg “ Bears Uta * 1h HeBoee ‘ hg ig ee uncon it by the Constitution anu any a H poeeee, at ee eS . I ease 7 ee Bee ether onactment. ee Pap aighae | ae Wks (2) 2xcept as praviced in sub- i ig + bog Sees ‘3 . oa f we: section (2) of Suction 7 ant Suction A ; oe eae 1 gf i i ae ly or its jurisdiction is expressly - fe : coy ee . exelitet by an ensetment, the Nigh t NG : Up GSS ea . ‘ Freee ad Gourt shall exercise unlimited original H fe (Hees “ { a ie ee ant supervisery jurisdiction in all } fi a ee | Wea Dok glee: causes and matters in the same manner i G (BS { 8 i ee ant with the same pavers ant authorities i Ai Sees : | ot HERG s As tmmudiaéely befure the commencement Bil: row Swan ov this Act." ite Sp See Ba . A BREN ee: “it. Hothing in this Act saall bo deemed ‘i y Cae ie 4 SeASaes . i ike Qo dea oe tL: invest the igh Court with juristlietion { fe : eas I o/s id Be “in regard to - i f : SAE vis i 4 WR. \ oe Q CRRS (a) any action or original proceedings - re . : i Bengt Pept 2 BE ESRS, (4) to dotermine-tie title to land Bie ee aor ele) qos situate in the Frevinces ether than ag Yo BEiee the title te a leasehold yranted ‘ coe ~ aft 4 de fe under the Praviness Lant Act." a ieee bres 1 ; mite a, These throes subsections should be read tosether. lg qo Mars TES SRE Ss it is ay « msidcred opinion that section 18 is subject vite Ye MBSE. to Scetion 21, Thorsfore, where in any action any fea : Ene. question Rriscs for Astormination rcinating to title to “ Bi oo Bee ig RO land situated in the Yroviness, uniuss, of course, the ta og ears question sclates te tithe to.a Aenaschol’ franted under id . i fee . 4 aay - qo ees me irovine. 5 Land act (Cap 122), the jurisdiction of Y Penk the High Court is ousted. No question arises for oS 3 are fad 5 Bo consiserotica in the present apyeal o£ any leasehold a a ae . = Be Be . grante:) &,-cither party of the said aromises under the a < , B Provinces: Lan? Act.. Asth parties wore cach claiming ee yi 4 wh gunershin of the said jsomises which was lisputed by H is fowk. . : fg Poe the other side. ON BE a ‘ x Bees Gee ti a an : Ct GN

Lae ce nr TEC Te i. Sores i ica cn [ERIE PREG ae a ENGR EGS. “St | BRE CREASES ES se y Pare ee j * a ™ A fe oe ce re: ee Sh. jigh, Court therefore, hed to determine and x es erm re e t ERAS OSE! aa vact leteraine thin issue. § 13 HH RE SEE 4 a a AE Me 2 Pay oysrossion "title to lanl" is nol defined in # cb eee : a : ge hae Lys Gowsts Act, 1965. Lt is algo not Vefinel in tho j g hee | ee | TE ky euv tne s Land Act nor in the Interprotation Act, i a Sc eie AEE : ‘ fe eee . . ie Se sons (4: 8 ef 1971). But the expression “Land is i E ee didi t in Section 4 of the Ynternretation Act, 1971. { ae i Ea tt ineluis = : 3 eke i / 3 Eee oe { i . ee ean “land caverel by water, any house, 1 : q ee building or structure whatsoever and i . a peepee | 2 east any estate, intercst cr right in, to | ah oe or over land or waters". . 3 BOSS’ tn tne eivewnstances, I interpret the expression | b perience . q 4 “EP See tT eatl. to land" for the yurpeses wf this appeal te i eS i 4 MGI can tis - nemely, which of the tvo parties to this : q SRESainpmal is ontitied to the ownership of the said i Be eer se q Se ecuisws. ‘This interpretatign, in wy view, clearly . SEA. 4 PRESSE Go ilot for a tetermination by thw iigh Court of tho “ See ‘ 4 Giese ousstion sf titie to lund situat. in the Provinces. i SEMA : 7 Besse . H . 4 GESGOG is questica, both the liigh Court ant the Court’ of i : cance i eee aes ; tt i 5 q ee go 4, id Aetermine, It is my considered view that | qT WSS ci tier éourt had any juristtiction under the afore- : : . SERS snci-mad provisions of tie Courts Act, 1965 to have i a piety ore : ‘ Spiers, . i : a HEHE astemminet this question nor did the High Court have ; Bo Re jurisedetion in les ave tri acti 4 3 iQue ony jurisdiction in lav to have tried the action. 1 ] 4 . “aainet The loyal position being such as < have found it : 7 Pete SEiGo' be be, it is ast surprising that Hr. ioe Smith, % i. a pase . ° . af Bers . soy ae SE co wot Counsel for the respondent, with his usual j me qa: A ‘ H : BEES Sesatur hat to concede to this principal question. i : See . 4 BSSBO ue shoudl be commendat fur this. As J mentioned PEE ¢ , ~~ . an whier, he Mimself nat in the provicus action in 1968 : [ oaincitthe issue before the High Court but he vas ; H weg if . i Seoestbeels { . j “ { ad on“ | > eee : i

| rs Aer 7s een Saat wamnsaaniies | gee Pat catndey” met | 2 Bae. 'S Cate i ree 8. ree p ee: ee i “«“ a bce ee tea as a IL might be of interest ts compare the present " + oie Bee ee. SS ae 5. wi Hyiat | i E: aoe sechisn 21 (a)(i) of the Courts act, 1965, with the ml a a See cl | 3 ES var provisions of Section 11 of the Courts Act (Cap 7) ‘ i By Re + | 4 ae Which latter Act was repealxl aml replaced by the 3 ENE 1 a abe GEES i of 3 ae: Conrts Act, 1965. Scetion 11 of the Courts Act 7 Lg Been . bs pa deveint | og Es ae {Cas 7) as far as tade-append—te-eencermd reads as Jem ®: i i ae folk stsift RBS: a aan ae. "11, In addition to the jurisdiction bos “heat q Ree | 4 . Ree: conferred hy this or-any other Act, i 3 peice A Pee Be i 4 a the High Court shall, within Sierra 4 Rehnaa Dg Sees ae: Se 7 Lesne and subject as in this Act Ls Hes mentioned, possess an) exerciso all fa a Le Satis 9s 7 i og ae the jurisdiction, povers an! authorities, fo Bah: 1 a eae which are veste:t in -r capable of being + fy . exercised by Hor Hajesty's igh Court of 3 Bees i 4 ight Justies in tngdeut: ae a oa . i 4 pote Yrevidet further that nothing: in i Brie 4g were: : : '¢ ee this Act shall bU doomed to invest the . 3 eae . Set, ' 9 ee Court with jurisietion in regard te — } ; : a {a) any question arising exclusively i 4g SARS + og a between natives - : Bete ‘ “oth er: Basis (i) involving title to land situate oman Lod hae atl rg voce within, the Provinces." a8 pe oh ty BASE? . Tho Courts Act, 1965, which, as I have already ey Sey o iy BL said, repeated and replaced the Courts Act (Cap 7) ‘ : 4 Paes . 4 eee case inte Toree on the 7th October, 1965. It would be ; bees sven that, ia comparison, up to the 6th October, 1965 jis! oa e oe ms | | . a . Pa , H a4 Raed for the jurisdiction of tie High Court in matters SEN 4 Heep. ee . aa involving title to land situated within the Provinces#fitsit paaa esis ae ta be suste) such mattors must als. arise exclusively’ 9° '* E B aon 4 Fags « B a betwoun "natives". The present lujal position in “ 4 oe i q ae relation to the High Court's jurisliction: regarding ointd ‘ aie Ey | tie: title to land situated in the Frovinces appears to ve, Se aaa ae) 4 eee eet _ t ae © yee sie eee ae