Rev Archibald G.John v Abu Black And Others (MISC APP 26 of 1993) [1994] SLCA 6 (16 April 1994)
Rev Archibald G.John v Abu Black And Others is a miscellaneous application from Sierra Leone on 16 April 1994. Cite it as [1994] SLCA 6. Search it by the party names, the citation [1994] SLCA 6, or Sierra Leone miscellaneous application.
April 16, 1994
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
Rev Archibald G.John
Appellant
v.
Abu Black And Others
Respondent
MISC APP 26 of 1993
[1994] SLCA 6
Proceeding. Miscellaneous application. Sierra Leone.
jo - 2 if MISC.APP. 26/93 in ; IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SIERRA DEQNE , BEIWEEN?— REV. ARCHIBALD GAMBALA JOHN (axecutor of the estate vet tne late icv Gusievus Joh.) ~/ AND ABU BLACK : ALIE FOFANAH
LAMIN DANKEH -RESPONDENTS/ CORAM? = HON.MR. JUSTICE E.C. THOMPSON-DAVIS - JSC HON.MR. JUSTICE M.O. ADOPHY - dA HON.MR, JUSTICE G. GELAGA-KING - JA Edwar? M. “uray, Esq,, for the applicants . Dr. W.S. Mexcus Jones for the respondent. RULING DELLVERED ON THE 19TH DAY OF AFD. 1994. G,GELAGA KING J,.:\: Whe applicants, by notice of motion dated 25th June, 1993, moved this Cowt for an interim stay of exécution pending the nearing ond cetveminatioa of their «), lication for a and also for a stay of execution of the judgement herein, pending the hearing and determination of theiz aypens to th Supreme €ourt, Woe a granted the interim stay and reserved our vuling on the other application. ak gucointly stated as fellows in Halebmy’s ive of England Jrd edition : vol 16 para 51 p.3b: be Whe Court has an absolute and unfettered discretion as to the ghenting or refusing a stay, 60 also as to the terms upon which it will grant it, * and will as a rule, only grant it if there are special ciroumstancesy which must be deposed to in an unless the application is made at the hearings.” In this application, ts» supporting affidavit purporting to ehow special circumstances is sworn io by one illiterate calling bim~ self Abu Black Iugbu. He states in paragraps. 63 " whe area claimed by me is 18 7517 acres avi the area claimed by the /appellant is only 7,67?50 acres, ‘This is borne out by the ewnibite texdured in the Hy wh Court which are now produced and shown to
: aa carte
x * me marked exhibits "B" and "F" respectively. The judgenent eglivered
; py tke Court of Appeal does not specify the area affected ay, the a : ‘judgement. Considering the history of this case it will be dg-the interest of all concerned that the said judgement is stayed uatil . the Supreme Court finally determines the matter between vo",
z uy firet observation is that either this j1litepate doce net uaderstand that an affidavit is a serious document which ms¥ contaix nothiag but the truth, er he was deliberately and mischievously misled ky his advieer into perverting his affidavit by the inclusion of palpasly false and scandalous allegations. He swears that the exhibit "B" which he annexes to his affidavit (and which I shall hereisaftes voter to as "the affidavit ex "E") was tendered in the HighsCourt, New the date of the judgement in the High Court is 18th Octoher, 1984, The date the affidavit ex"E"(which is an Indenture) was, made is stated , on the document to be 25th August, 19863 How a document -made iy 1986 could have been tendered in Court in a case in which judgemoat was delivered in 1984 is certainly beyond my comprehensien and_that of ‘same persons. Obviously no such document was tendered in the Hee (our What wae in fact tendered as Ex"E" is an indenture made the bey dey of June, 1930 and made between Abdu Rahman Lewally and Gustavus AgemJohn
‘ nothing at “11 tc ao with the d-literate deponents It really is a matter of great concern that a party who is represented by at experiencec solicitor should be attempting unashamedly and blantagtly te mislead this Court in tats way with the obvious intention ef perverting the course of justice, Cee He aleo stated that thie Court did not specify the area affected by its judgement, but in the Certificate of this Court's orderg exhibited by the deponmat as ex "0", not only is the area involeag dgsoribor in detail Be the area of the land is stated to be 246270 acres. Enough time has been wasted on thie application which ie elearly frivolous, vexatious and scandalous and docs not merit the time spent ase in considerang it. No special’ circumstances whateogxey have eer shown why a stay of execution should be granted and T shally’ therefore, refuse it with costs against the applicaats, Such costs to be taxed. caste veel, GD) ceee ce sHON, MR. JUSTICE EyG¢, THOMPSON-DAVIS JSC (rrsaiigy) GSD) HUN. MR. JUSTICE MyO, ADOPHY JA x 5 (SD)..ceeceecHION Mi. AUGTICE Gy QBLAGA-KING J.Ae
Judges
The judges named in this report. Each page lists their other judgments on Lanbuk.