Skip to content
Miscellaneous application

Najet Turay v International Committee of the Red Cross (MISC APP 9 of 1999) [2000] SLCA 7 (12 January 2000)

Najet Turay v International Committee of the Red Cross is a miscellaneous application from Sierra Leone on 12 January 2000. Cite it as [2000] SLCA 7. Search it by the party names, the citation [2000] SLCA 7, or Sierra Leone miscellaneous application.

Sierra Leone — Court of AppealPDF · 1.2 MB[2000] SLCA 7Miscellaneous application

Freetown

January 12, 2000

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Najet Turay

Appellant

v.

International Committee of the Red Cross

Respondent

MISC APP 9 of 1999

[2000] SLCA 7

Proceeding. Miscellaneous application. Sierra Leone.

Misc. App. 9/99 4 BETWEEN: ~ MRS. NAJET TOURAY - /RESPONIEN! 87, WILKINSON ROAD, FREETOWN : : AND INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF © — / THE RED CROSS BRIGHT STREET . FREETOWN. :

Coram

— : HON. MR. JUSTICE N.D. ALHADI - JA. Hon. MR, JUSTICE M .E, TOLLA THOMPSON - J.A. HON. MR. JUSTICE F.C. GBOW - J.A. RULING DELIVERED ON THE 129TH DAY s OF JANUARY, 2000 GBOW TeAs

On the 11th day of January, 2000, this Honourable Court was moved by a Notice of Motion dated 8th December, 1999 filed by Mr. Berthan Macaulay, on behalf of the Defendents/Applicants herein for an order that this Honourable Court do make an order granting a stay of all further proceedings in this action pending the hearing and determination of the appeal to this court,

And, also, that the costs of this Application be that of the plaintiff/..

In support of the application, an was filed on the . 8th of December, 1999 by Berthen Macaulay(Jr.) A Supplementary Affidavit datéa 30th December 1999 was also sworn to and filed by the seme deponent, Berthan Macmlay (ar.). .

+, It is appropriate at this juncture to mention that Mr. E.E.C. Shears-lMoses, Learned Counsel for the Pleintiff/Respondent filed no Affidavit in opposition, and indeed, he did not say in so many many words that he was opposing the application.

Iearned Counsel for the Defendents/Applicants referred us to Paragraph 8 of the supporting affidavit of the 8th of Decembe, 1999 wherein it is stated that +

"if a stay of further proceedings is not granted, the appeal, if successful, could have been rendered

mugatory because the Defendents/Applicents would have had to proceed with its Defence as originally filed without being allowed to lead evidence on the matters set out in the proposed emended Defence - thet although the appeal would be in respect of an matter, the same may not be heard and determined by this court before the Defendents/Applicants is called upon to proceed, with its defence in the High Court; the Plaintiff/Respondent having alread: closed her case," Counsel also referred to Paragraph 4 of the Supplemental Affidav. Several documents were exhibited to the affidavits filed by the applicant including a proposed Defence, a Notice of Appeal and the drawn up order of the High Court refusing an earlier appli- . cation for a stay of ell further proceedings. These exhibits , were marked "BMJ 1" - BMJ 10". . Learned Counsel Mr. Shears-Moses for the Plaintiff/Respondent in his reply submitted that if the application were granted and the proceedings stayed this would frustrate -the plaintiff's case. Counsel particularly referred to Paragraph 3 of BMJ 3 the Original Defence and compared it with BMJ 5 the Proposed Amended Defence. He submitted that the Proposed Defence is virtually the same es BMJ 3 and that HMJ 5 is mere evidence of what is contained in BMJ

3. Therefore, argued Counsel, the Proposed Defence should not affect the outcome of the Appeal. In reply to this argument Mr. Berthan Macaulay referred to Bullen and leake end Jacob's Precedents of Plesdings....\.! Paragraph 756 under the Rubric "Defence alleging Frustration of Contract. This Paragraph requires thet particulars of the frustration mst be stated - the facts, matters and circumstences relied on which is what BMJ 5 is doing. —_ I have carefully considered oth arguments... I agree with Leerned Counsel for the Applicant that what........ averred in the Proposed Defence BMJ 5 constitutes the particulars of the frustrations - they are not necessarily evidence of BMJ

3. In the interest of justice all further proceedings in this action ought to be stayed until the appeal is heard and [Breccveveee

and determined. I so order , Costs of this application to be that of the Plaintif?/ Respondent, AAS exer aAl~L 10% Cero cr (Sgd) Hon. Mr. Justice F.C. Gbow - J.A.

I vce Uo rn Mr. Justice N.D. Alhadi - J.A. Ue + «I agreesscececoccevceceseveeHon, Mr, Justice M.E. Tolla Thompson AS tk t&/'/ born

Judges

The judges named in this report. Each page lists their other judgments on Lanbuk.