Nazih Hassanyeh v Eugemo Satori (CIV APP 20 of 1999) [2002] SLCA 18 (13 August 2002)

ort CR.APP.11/92 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SIERRA LEON! BETWEEN: NAZIH HASSANYEH APPELLANT AND | EUGEMO SATORI RESPONDENT |

Coram

Hon Justice Sir John Muria JSC Hon Justice U.H. Tejan-Jalloh JA Hon Justice S. Koroma JA Hearing: 31° May 2006 Judgment:24- October, 2006 Advocates: B Macaulay Jr and C.F. Edward for Appellant E.E.C Shears-Moses for Respondent

Judgment

Delivered this 2¢ dayof CoAsh»y 2006. TEJAN-JALLOH JA: This is an appeal against the Judgment of Hon. Justice F.C. Gbow delivered on the 13" March 1992 in which the learned Judge made the following Orders against the Appellant: () delivery up of possession of the premises ; (i) mesne proft (ii) be restrained from parting with possession of the premises other i)

‘ 2 uy 2

‘ than ‘o the Respondent (iv) pay damages for breach of contract and (¥) Pay cost of the action, ‘The appellant being dissatisfied with part of the Judgment appealed to the Court regarding the delivery up of possession, injunction and mense proft. The grouncs of Appeal are: 1, The leamed Trial Judge having found that:

“(@)_ This 1990 was he same year in which the Plaintiffs own lease, the Head lease with Goverment in respect of the land on which these buildings are located was to expire ...

..The plaintitf himself had been a sub Lessee to one Dr. Sitta, who was the original Lessee to Government the lessor ofthe land. Dr. Sitta’s unexpired term had been assigned to the Plaintiff”

“(b) Since according to the evidence the Plaintif’s term of years come to an end in 1990"

*(¢) There is no evidence that the Plaintiff has exercised his right of option®

Erred in law in ordering, on the 13" March 1992, that the 2%

Defendant =... do delivery up of possession of both houses situate at No. 28 & 28A Horse Shoe Road, Kissy Dockyard.”

‘ “su that the 2" Defendant by himself his servants or agents OF otherwise howsoever be restrained from parting with Possession of the said premises save to the Plaintiff” in that the Plaintif no longer had any legal interest and or rights in ‘espect of the said premises affer the expiration of same as found by the learned trial Judge himselt

2. The learned trial Judge having reviewed the evidence of the Plaintiff with regard to the latter's instructions to the 1" Defendant that he wanted the revised rent to be in the sum of £5,000.00 (Five Thousand Pounds Sterling) misdirected himself in assessing mense profit when he said “For any assessment of the mense profits | am going to adopt the amount of £2,500.00 (Two Thousand Five Hundred Pounds) as a fair rent for the dwelling house per annum for the period 1986 -

in the absence of any evidence whatsoever that such a figure represented the fair value of the said premises for the period in question

3. The leamed trial Judge in assessing mense profit with particular regards to the exchange rate prevailing over a period of time misdirected himself when he stated as follows:- “With the aid of information obtained from Commercial Bank as well as the Bank of Sierra Leone | am in a position to consider this issue" in that -

. (@) m0 such information has been given in evidence during the course of the trial and (b) The learned trial Judge was acting on information received by him personally which was not “evidence” : for the purpose of adjudication on the issue of mense Profit. Itis clear from the grounds of appeal that at the heart ofthis case is the legal status of the respondent's lease over the property in question. It is therefore necessary that the status of the respondent's right to the property concemed must first be ascertained. “his is crucial to any claim that he may have against the appellant over the latter's reliance on his subsequent leasehold right in the property. Status of the Plaintiffs Lease According to the evidence before the court, the plaintif was granted a sublease over the property in 1967 for a term of 22 years by one Dr. Sitta who held the head lease from the Government. The sublease was to * expire in 1990 which was the same year in which Dr. Sitta's head lease was to expire. However, in or about 1985, Dr. Sitta’s unexpired term was assigned to the respondent, thus making the respondent's sublease as well as the head lease expiring at the same time, that is, at the end of 41990. The evidence on this can be found at pages 64 and 55, as well as in “Exh. K and L” at pages 298 and 299 of the Record). Further it is pertinent to note a very important finding of fact made by the learned trial judge relating to the status of the respondent's lease, His Lordship had this to say, before deciding on the question of mense profi (at page 272 of the Record) eee a ae o

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