Prince Tunde Lighfoot-Taylor v Christopher Lawrence Lightfoot-Taylor (MISCAPP 33/025) [2025] SLCA 3 (4 June 2025)

MISC. APP. 33/2025, IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SIERRA LEONE BETWEEN: PRINCE TUNDE LIGHTFOOT-TAYLOR - PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT AND CHRISTOPHER LAWRENCE LIGHTFOOT-TAYLOR -DEFENDANT/APPLICANT

Coram

HON. MR. JUSTICE SULAIMAN A. BAH JA - (SITTING ALONE) COUNSEL: S WILL FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPLICANT. C HOTOBAH-DURING AND A KOJO-MUSA FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT. RULING DELIVERED ON THE 4™ DAY OF JUNE 2025.

The Application

1. By a Notice of Motion dated the 5"* May 2025, the defendant/applicant is seeking for Orders, stated thereon as follows: “1. That this Honourable Court grants an interim stay of proceedings of this action currently in the High Court pending the hearing and determination of this application.

2. That this Honourable Court grants leave to the defendant/applicant herein to appeal against the ruling of the High Court dated the 14" April 2025 in the Court of Appeal.

3. That upon leave been granted by this Honourable Court, a stay of proceedings in this action be granted pending the hearing and determination of this appeal in the Court of Appeal. 4, That this Honourable Court grants any other order(s) that may be deem just in the circumstance.

5. Costs in the cause.”

2. The motion is supported by an affidavit and a supplemental affidavit, both sworn to by Joseph M French Esq,, on the 25" day of April 2025 and the 6" day of May 2025, respectively, together with the exhibits attached thereto.

SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPLICANT

3. Counsel for the defendant/applicant, S Will Esq., commenced by relying on Rules 10(1), 11(1) and 28 of the Court of Appeal Rules 1985, Statutory Instrument 29 of 1985, (hereinafter referred to as CAR 1985). He submitted that the grounds of appeal in the proposed Notice of Appeal are prima facie good grounds; and, raises serious questions of law with a realistic prospect of success. He also submitted that the issues are triable, In support of the submissions, Counsel relied on Kalpataru Power Transmission Limited AND Zenith Bank (Sierra Leone) Ltd and another (Mise App 19/19). Counsel further submitted that there is no misdirection on any of the proposed grounds of appeal because there is nothing he could quote from exhibit JMF 9!, the ruling of the High Court dated the 14% day of April 2025, as it failed to apply the law to the facts or submissions made. He also submitted that the grounds of appeal are of public importance and raises triable issues thereby inviting the Court's determination, should leave be granted to file the appeal. Counsel referred the Court to Orders 59/13/2 and 50/14/18 of the White Book 1991 Vol | under the rubric “Circumstances under which leave should be granted” and ‘Stay of executions or of proceedings”. He referred the Court to paragraphs 13 ~ 19 of the affidavit in support stating that the said paragraphs disclose special circumstances. He relied on Moria Miciver Slowe V Habib Salman and another (Mise App 1/2018), and Africana Tokeh Village Ltd AND John Obey Development Investment Co Ltd (Mise App 2/94). SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

4. In opposing the application, Counsel for the plaintifi/respondent, Carl Hotobah During Esq, filed an affidavit in opposition and a supplemental affidavit in opposition, and both sworn to by Carl Hotobah During Esq., on the 14” of May 2025 and 15" of May 2025, respectively. He relied on the entirety of both affidavits and more particularly paragraphs 3 6 of the affidavit sworn to on the 14 day of May 2025. Counsel referred to exhibits CHD | & 2 the Learned Trial Judge (herein after LTJ)'s notes on the rulings of the 14" and 15! of April 2025. He also referred the Court to Orders 39/13/2 and 59/14/18 of the 1999 Supreme Court Practice and submitted that both provisions support his stance in opposing the application for leave to appeal. In support of his submissions, Counsel referred to Timis Mining Corporation (SL) Ltd AND Dawnus (GL) Ltd, a ruling of the High Court of Sierra Leone delivered by Justice Sengu M Koroma J (as he then was) on the 4" of March 2015. Counsel further submitted that the quality of the proposed grounds of appeal are important for the Court's consideration. He continued by stating that the proposed grounds of appeal disclose absolutely no reasonable prospect of success, no special circumstances and above all no triable issues. The grounds are purely procedural defects which Counsel for the applicant is at liberty to cure. Counsel submitted that the proposed grounds of appeal are not prima facie good grounds and they lack merit. In conclusion, Counsel submitted that there are no good reasons or special circumstances or triable issues and the application for leave is an exercise of frivolity for which costs should be awarded against Counsel in his personal capacity.

SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPLICANT IN REPLY | 5. $ Will Esq submitted that the issues raised are triable, particularly the proposed Ground |

2. He submitted that the hand written notes of the of the LTJ’s ruling dated the 14 day of April 2025 (exhibit CHD 1) clearly shows the LTJ’s failure to apply the law to the facts or submissions, that in itself, is a special circumstance. He finally submitted that the relevance of exhibits JMF 5'? would have to be determined after leave to appeal is granted.

Issues and Findings

|

6. The issues for consideration in this application, are: (i) whether the proposed grounds | of appeal are prima facie good and substantial grounds? (ii) whether the applicant has | shown good and sufficient reasons? and, (ii) whether the proceedings in the High Court should be stayed? |

7. It is a must for an applicant seeking leave to appeal to comply with Rule 10(2) of the | CAR 1985, which state: “Any application for leave to appeal ... shall be supported by an affidavit setting forth good and sufficient reasons for the application and by proposed grounds of appeal which prima facie show good cause for leave to appeal ... should be granted.”

8. In considering whether Rule 10(2) of the CAR 1985, has been complied with, it is but necessary to look at Exhibit MF 10 - the proposed Notice of Appeal, in order to consider whether the proposed grounds show prima facie good and substantial grounds of appeal. The proposed grounds are:

“Ground 1 That the [LTJ] failed to consider adequately or at all the submissions and address put forward by the Appellant herein in the Court below thereof and erred to have ruled that the Defendant is refused leave to file additional documents in the action in the court below. The [LTJ] therefore erred in law in ruling out EXH JMF F! and EXH JMF F? which should have been vital evidence in not only arriving at her ruling and to have restored the Summons for Direction but also for the judgment of this matter. Ground 2 That the [LJ] failed to apply the Law to the facts or submissions in her ruling in which she completely ignored to give reasons for her decision thereby leading toa miscarriage [of] justice in dismissing the application to restore the summons for direction, Ground 3 the [LTJ] erred to have dismissed the application to restore the Summons for Directions which could be made at any time before judgment and thus wrongly interpreted the provisions of order28 rule 6(3) of the High Court Rules 2007

Ground 4 The Ruling is against the weight of the evidence.”

9, Counsel for the defendant/applicant has argued that the proposed grounds of appeal, and more particularly the proposed Ground 2, are good and substantial grounds as they raise triable issues. Counsel for the respondent disagreed with the submissions by stating inter alia: that the proposed grounds are purely procedural defects which counsel for the applicant is at liberty to cure; and, that there are no good reasons or special circumstances or triable issues; and, that the application for leave is an exercise of frivolity for which costs should be awarded against Counsel in his personal capacity

10. This Court is mindful of the fact that itis not the Court’s funetion at this stage to embark con considering the merit of the proposed grounds of appeal or “[t]he facts and arguments before the court below leading to the decisions reached by that court”. But rather, to the determine whether the proposed grounds are prima facie good and substantial in nature.

11. The Court was referred to Timis Mining Corporation (SL) Ltd AND Dawnus (SL) Ltd, Kalpataru Power Transmission Limited AND Zenith Bank (Sierra Leone) Ltd and another, Moria Miciver Slowe V Habib Salman and another, Africana Tokeh Village Ltd AND John Obey Development Investment Co Ltd, and Orders 59/13/2 and 59/14/18 of the 1999 Supreme Court Practice. Both Counsel were on point in referring to the aforementioned authorities dealing with circumstances in which leave may be granted. However, it should be noted that Counsel are at variance in applying the authorities to the given circumstances of this application.

12. The aforementioned proposed ground 2, in particular, is specific, as it plainly states the complaints in terms of the LTJ’s failure to apply the law to the facts or submissions and give reason(s) for her ruling of the 14" April 2025. This failure or error show a prima “acie good and substantial ground which raise a serious legal question for consideration ‘and determination by the Court of Appeal. The consideration of the legal question, certainly, would avail the Court the opportunity in determining whether a ruling or a judgment must contain the deliberations of the law and facts of the case and the reason(s) for the decision of the court. Further, the legal issue or question in the said ground 2, is also, “a question of importance upon which further argument and a decision of the Court of Appeal would be to the public advantage.”

13, The affidavits in support of the application and augmented by the submissions of counsel for the defendant/applicant manifest good and sufficient reasons for the ranting of leave to appeal. Moreover, the fact that ground 2 of the proposed notice of appeal being arguable and raising a serious question for determination, is a good and sufficient reason for the granting of leave to appeal.

14. This Court having embraced ground 2 of the proposed notice of appeal as a prima facie 800d and substantial ground to endure the appeal, will now consider whether to stay the proceedings in the Court below pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.

15. Staying proceedings in the court below though within the unconstrained discretion of

the Court, must be, where there are “good reasons for doing so.” Therefore, it is a must to look out for the “good reasons” and “special circumstance”,

16. Counsel for the applicant did submit that the LTJ’s failure to apply the law to the facts | or submissions and give reason(s) for her ruling of the 14 April 2025, as set out in | ground 2 of the proposed notice of appeal, is in itself.a special circumstance. This Court

concur with the said submission as that is evidently shown in exhibit CHD 1, the hand | written notes of the of the LTJ’s ruling dated the 14" day of April 2025.

17. The Court is of the opinion that the LTTJ’s failure to apply the law to the facts or submissions and give reason(s) for her ruling of the 14" April 2025, is both a special circumstance and a ‘good and sufficient reason’. Consequently, the said proposed ground 2 being a prima facie good and substantial ground of appeal, raising a serious

| question of law which requires a determination in the Court of Appeal, do qualify as a special circumstance. The Court’s opinion is reinforced by the dictum of S A Ademosu JA, in Mise App 4/2008 Richard Owiredu AND Beijing Urban Construction Group Limited (Carrying on business as Bintumani Hotel, where he had this to say:

“As this Court has said before it is not every ground of law that qualifies as a special circumstance for a stay of [proceedings]. For a ground of law to so qualify it ought to be shown it is substantial that a decision on it one way or the other will affect the substratum of the whole case and the applicant has some chances of success. I am satisfied that an issue of law has been raised on which the compelling right of the parties depend so that it is desirable to resolve it in the Court of Appeal. The result is, I feel that justice of the case demands that a stay be granted.”

18. Equally so, on the question of considering staying proceedings in the Court below where a Court is granting leave to appeal, as in this application, two questions comes to mind. Firstly, would the failure of the LTJ as complained of impact the matter below.

It is not in the purview of the present application to give answer to this question. The answer to this question may however be provided in the appeal. And secondly, should the action continue in the Court below whilst the appeal is being heard and a decision being reached on the appropriateness and impact of the LTJ’s omission to apply the law

to the facts or submissions and give reason(s) for her ruling? An absurd situation may

likely occur should the trial proceed in the Court below against the backdrop that leave

to appeal is given. This Court had earlier contended with the likely effect of such a

situation in the case intituled Mise App 17/2015 Abdul Karim Seray Wurie

(Administrator of the Estate of Abdul Karim Seray Wurie (Deceased Intestate)

AND Attorney General & Minister of Justice and Charles Margai -a ruling delivered on the 28” January, 2015, where RS Fynn JA, had this to say: “In the event that stay of [proceedings] is not granted whilst leave to appeal is granted it seems to me that an absurd situation might arise wherein the trial will be proceeded with below whilst crucial questions which would otherwise impact [the] said trial will be up for discussion and decision before this court.” In any such circumstance, this Court should avoid rendering nugatory the outcome of an appeal. It would be prudent for the action in the Court below to be stayed, whilst the appeal is speedily heard.

19. Therefore, the Court: (@) grant the defendant/applicant leave to appeal against the ruling of Hon. Justice Cosmotina Jarrett J. dated the 14" day of April 2025; (6) order a stay of proceedings in this action pending the speedy hearing and determination of the appeal in the Court of Appeal; and (©) order costs in the cause. Signed: fbb... HON. MR. JUSTICE SULAIMAN A. BAH, JA