Mrs Matilda Victoria Sesay v Attorney-General (MISC APP 7 of 2004) [2004] SLCA 26 (4 June 2004)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SIERRA LEONE { Mise. &pp.7/04 . BETWEEN: MRS, MATILDA VICTORIA SESAY APPLICANT ! AND: 1 THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL RESPONDENT

Coram

Hon. Sir John Muria JA Hon. Ms. U.H. Tejan-Jalloh JA Hon. Ms. T.A. Doherty J. HEARING: 1 April 2004

Judgment

4 June 2004 Advocates: Applicant: C.J. Peacock Respondent: CE. Roberts Delivered this 4 day of Sue zoos. A Muria J A. This is an application by way of Notice of Motion by the applicant, seeking a number of orders bearing on the Report of the Commission of Inquiry conducted by the Hon. Justice Mrs. Laura Marcus-Jones on the leasing and sale of State Lands in the Western Area in 1999. The orders sought in this a application are:

ee 144

1. That this Honourable Court do hereby grant an extension of time which the ‘Applicant may file a Notice of Appeal to the Court of ' ‘Appealagainst findings, Report and Government White Paper of 4 Honourable Justice MRS LAURA MARCUS-JONES, Commission of Inquiry ‘on the leasing and sale of State Lands in the Western Area of 1999.

2. That this Honourable Court do grant leave to the Defendant/Applicant to file in a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal against the findings, Report and Government White Paper of Honourable Justice ‘ MRS. LAURA MARCUS-JONES, Commission of Inquiry on the leasing and sale of State Lands in the Western Area of 1999. |

8. Tat this Horcuale Gout do hrey rata intr tay fhe | proceedings in the High Court pending the hearing and determination | of the Appeal in the Court of Appeal,

4. That this Honourable Court do hereby grant a stay of proceedings in the High Court, pending the hearing and determination of the Appeal in the Court of Appeal.

5. Any other Order(s) as this Honourable Court may deem fit and just.

6. That the costs of this application be costs in the cause.

Background

The background to this application was that due to complaints of irregularities over the allocation and disposition, and encroachment of both private and State Lands, the government set up a Commission of Inquiry to enquire, investigate and examine and make recommendations regarding the laws, procedure and disposition of State Land. The Commissioner, Hon. Justice Mrs. Laura Marcus- > Jones, heard evidence from witnesses and made findings and recommendations which were made in a 1999 Report (Report of Commission of Inquiry) and

Bis: 200 " presented to His Excellency the President in January 2000. Following that Report of the Commission of Inquiry, the Government produced its White Paper 4 based on the Report and Recommendations sf tke Commission of Inquiry, Issues raised in the Report led the Government to further investigate matters ~ relating to land allocations in the Western Area. The Government White Paper was published in October 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “the GWP"). Application for Extension of Time | The applicant seeks to appeal against the "findings, Report and Government White Paper of Hon. Justice Mrs. Laura Marcus-Jones, Commission of Inquiry" on the leasing and sale of state lands in Western Area. Having realised that the Report and GWP were issued in 2000, and being advised of the right of appeal under S.149(4) of the Constitution, the applicant seeks an extension of time to appeal. The power to grant an extension of time is discretionary, with the party seeking the extension bearing the burden of establishing the basis for granting it. Section 149(4) Constitution The right of appeal under S.149(4) of the Constitution gives a person against whom an adverse finding has been made by the Report of the Commission of Inquiry the right to appeal to the Court of Appeal. It is pursuant to that provision that the applicant comes to this Court seeking to be given extended time to exercise her right under the provision to appeal against the finding of the Commission of Inquiry. It should be noted that before the Court can grant an extension of time to appeal, the applicant must bring herself within the ambit of ¥ Section 149(4) of the Constitution, that is to say, her grievance stems from an adverse finding by the Commission of Inquiry. As the anplicant seeks to appeal

{ofa oa z2ol against both the report and the G.W.P, it would be helpful to consider the whole of section 149 of the Constitution which provides:

(1) The Commission of Inquiry shall - (@) make a ful, faithful and an impartial inquiry into any matter specified in the commission of appointment. (b) report in writing the result of the inquiry; and (©) furnish in the report the reasons leading to the Conclusions arrived at or reported,

(2) The President shall, subject to the provisions of subsection (4), cause to be Published the report of a Commission of Inquiry together with the White Paper thereon within six months of the date of submission of the report of the Commission.

(3) Where the report of a Commission of Inquiry is not to be published, the President shall issue a statement to that effect, giving reasons why the report is rot to be published.

(4) Where a Commission of inquiry makes an adverse finding against any person, which may result in a penalty, forfeiture or loss of status, the report of the Commission of Inquiry shall, for the purposes of this Constitution, be deemed to bbe a judgment of the High Court of Justice and accordingly an appeal shall lie as of right from the Commission to the Court of Appeal ‘Subsection (4) gives an aggrieved person the right to challenge a finding of the ‘Commission of Inquity by a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal. In order to do : 80, “the report" of the Commission of Inquiry has been deemed to be a judgment of the High Court f-sm which an appeal lies to the Court -f Appeal. It will be

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