Precious Minerals Marketing Company (Sierra Leone) Ltd v Sheik Abdulai Aledulkaliq Bin-Rafaah v (CIV APP 2 of 2000) [2005] SLSC 6 (23 March 2005)

i? Se INTHE SUPREME COURT OF SIERRA LEONE CIV.APP /2000 BETWEEN: GIERRA LEONE) me US MINERAL MARKETING COMPANY AND PRECIOUS MINRALS MARKETING COMPANY (SIERA LEONE) LTD. - APPELLANTS 7 AND

INTHE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES ACT CAP.249 SHEIK ABDULAI ALEDULKALIQ BIN- RAFAAH - RESPODNENT

Coram

+ Hon, Justice Dr. A.B.Timbo sei de CF: Hon, MrJustice S.C.E.Wame ~ srry IBC: Hon.MrJustice E.C.Thompson-Davis * - Isc

¥ Hon MrJustice M.0.Adophy &.-4y BC Hon Mrs Justice P.E. Macaulay » eaenredes F.M. Carew Esq for the Appellants Ds. Vincent Esq. for the respondent

HUNG or THe HONOURABLE MR, JUSTICE S.GE, WARNE

History of the Case

The process of law, culminating in this appeal is as follows: on the 23 day of Ave

fide 1997 a Petition was field in the High Court of Sierra Leone by one SheikAbdullai A Bin Raffah in respect of the Precious Minerals Marketing Company (Sierra Leone) Lad. Incorporated on 15" September 1984 under the Companies Act (Cap 249), ‘The Petitioner is the Respondent herein, For the several reasons stated in the Petition, the Petitioner prayed for the following

Orders

“i, That the Company be wound up by the Court under the provisions of the Companies Act Chapter 249 of the laws of Sierra Leone. ii That the Petitioner may be granted such order as in the Premises may be Just. 1 On the 29° day of April 1997, Notice of Intention to oppose the Petition was filed by the late Mr. Terrence Tenry a Solicitor ithe ‘High Court on behalf of MJ. & J. Development Company Ltd. A contributory (Share Holder) of Precious Minerals Marketing Company (SL) Ltd. On the 13" day of May 1997 a swom affidavit by one Max-Dixon, a clerk in the office of Mr. Terry challenging the jurisdiction ofthe ‘ourt to hear the Petition for non-compliance with the mandatory provision of Rule 32 of the Winding-up Rules 1929, On the 23" October 1998, there was a Ruling on ‘he Preliminary objection by Stronge-as he then was) a ‘That the Petition dated the 23" day of April 1997 for the winding-up of ‘he Precious Minerals Marketing Company (S-LOLimited be removed “om the file inthe Companies (Winding-upofTice Regisy. The effect oF my order is thatthe Petition is struck out.

2. That the costs be paid by the Petitioner, such Costs to be taxed. "On the 24* November, 1998, Mr. D.S.Vincent Solicitor for Respondents herein made an application before Stronge J. (as he then was) for the Petition to be re-instated this was opposed by MrF.M.Carew Solicitor for Appellants fherein¥ On the 18% ‘May 1999 Mr. Justice Stronge dismissed the Motion for the re-instatement of the Petition. On the 4 January 1999, the Respondent herein filed a Notice of Appeal against the Order of Mr. Justice strong 238 day of October 1998 etme pause here and make certain observations. After the Onder which was made ‘ostike out the Petition made on 23" October 1998, there was another Order ‘made on 18*May 1999 dismissing the application for the re-instatement of the Petition. Be that ‘sitmay, was the Notice of Appeal within the time prescribed by the Rules of the Court ; sa See eens Meet the reliefs sought in the Notice of Appeal is:

(i) “That the Petition dated the 23 day of April 1971 for the Winding-up of the Precious Minerals Marketing Company (SL) Limited which the Honourable MrJustice A.N.B. Stronge Fordered to be struck out on the 23" day of October 1998 be reinstated in the Companies winding-up office registry”

Thete is no ppeal against that Order for dismissing the application for the re-instatement *tthe Petition, Can this relief be granted, when there is no appeal? I will also consider isin dug Course. Let me continue with the History of events. Proceedings in the Court . **Atpeal went on before a Court made up of Alhadi, (Deceased) Tolla Thompson, Gbow F

| TAisho delivered their Rating on 298 day of May Aad and Gbow J.A allowed the Appeal and Tola-Thompson dismissed the Appeal ‘The Grounds of Appeal The. ed and Orders of the Court of Appeal are dated 29% May 2000. The grounds of |“ i That the Majority Decision/Ruing the Cours Per incuriam as it failed or ignored the recognized and laid down Higher Judicial authorities on the | effect of non-compliance of statutory provisions and case Law on this issue. | ii That the Majority Coun’s DecisionRuling is wrong in Law in waiving the | Mandatory Provisions of Rule 11(5) of the current Rules of the Court of | pea. | iii That the Majority Decision/Ruling erred in Law in holding that the none compliance with Rule 11(5) by the Appellant was not willful and that the Court has inherent jurisdiction to waive the non-compliance of Rule 1 1(5) under the Court’s Powers in Rule 66 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal. iv That Rule 14(4) of the West African Court of Appeal Rules 1950 were diss8504 6 feute 1 (5) of the current rules of Court of Appeal, Y That the Majority decision/ruling of the Court is unreasonable and cannot be supported by the facts and Law before the Court” Pore the Court, both Counsel wee given opportunity Pasnipewles ie Teirmain focus were on the Ruling of Mr. Justice Stronge, Was ita final rling or an lteocutory one? In my opinion, the Ruling was an interlocutory one, What was the “Stebefore the Court of Appeal? It seems tome that the arguments onthe nee Nedaste Stronge was not really addressed in the Court of Appeal. The decisions in

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