Paul Kamara V Maitland E. Thompson (5 of 2002) [2002] SLCA 13 (10 June 2002)

i)" \ 10S we CR. APP. No.5/2002. INTHE COURT OF APPEAL FOR STERRA LEONE BETWEEN: PAUL KAMARA-----—------APELLANT/APPLICANT AND ira te MAITLAND E. TOLLAH THOMPSON-------RESPONDENT t CORAM:HON.Mr. JUSTICE A. NBANKOLE STRONGE J.A, PRESIDING.

HON. JUSTICE PATRICIA MACAULAY J.A. HON. Mr.JUSTICE A. ADEMUSU J.

GIBSON OKEKE,ESQ. FOR APPLICANT,

N. D. TEJAN-COLE,ESQ. With him AS. SESAY,ESQ.and GLENA

THOMPSON.Ms.

RULINNG DELIVERED BY A.N.BANKOLE STRONGE J.A. THIS 10TH DAY

OR «see 22002.

In his Notice of motion dated the 2nd. day of

Mecember.2002,the Applicant proposed to apply to this Court for the following orders:-

(a) That this application be heard notwithstanding short service of this Motion.

(b)That bail be granted to the Appellant/Applicant pending the hearing and determination

of the Appeal

At the commencement of the hearing, Mr.N.D.Tejan-Cole raised certain preliminary

Issues

He submitted that the Notice of Motion is not properly before the Court and should not be heard, He canvassed seve(7) preliminary objections, Of the greatest weight amongst these is: -

‘That the application for BAIL presupposes that there is an APPEAL before thre . COURT.

He submitted that Section 57 of the COURTS ACT 1965,Public Notice No.3t of 1965, makes a clear distinction between AN APPEAL against conviction and an APPEAL against sentence. He pointed out that by RULES 40 and 45 of the RULES the proper FORMS for an APPEAL against conviction and that for an APPEAL against sentence respectively are those set out as FORM 2 and FORM3 respectively in Appendix C of the RULES. Exhibit PK2 which purports to be a NOTICE OF APPEAL is in contravention of RULES 40 and 45 of the RULES.There is therefore no evidence of an APPEAL before tins COURT as is required by SectionS7 of the COURTS ACT,supra, and by RULES 40 iid 45 of the RULES.

On this xround alone what purports to be a NOTICE OF APPEAL dated 2nd. Mecember,2002,is not properly before this COURT.I must point out that that document is replete with irregularities and errors.

Mr OKEKE made no serious attempt to answer to the objections raised. He perhaps could not This COURT therefore Orders that what purports to be a NOTICE OF APPEAL dated the 2nd. December.2002 be struck out and it is so struck out % Cosis awarded to the Respondent assessed at Le:300,000.00(Three hundred thousand Leones)

7 ; Met Rocebtones TA.” : PATRICIA MACAULAY yA h-Bae cf A. ADEMUSU J. At ps,