Rokel Resources (SL) Ltd v Bittanol International Trading Company & Associates (SC CIV APP 4 of 1988) [2005] SLSC 4 (31 May 2005)

4o x !N THE SUPREME COURTS OF SIERRA LEONE

Coram

‘The Hon. Mr.Justice S.M.F. Kutubu cl. ‘The Hon.Mr.Justie S.Beceles Davies Jsc : The Hon Mr.Justice $.C.E. Warne Isc * ‘The Hon.Mr.Justice M.O.Adophy JA ‘The Hon Mrs.tustice V.A.D. Wright JA SC.CIV.APP.No.4/88, ROKEL RESOURCES (S.L.)Ltd. = APPELLANTS vs. BITTANOL INTERNATIONAL, TRADING COMPANY AND ASSOCIATES — =~ RESPONDENTS J.B. Jenkins-Johnston Esq, for the Appellants Berthan Macaulay Jr. Esq for Respondent JUDGMENT DELIVERED THIS 3 DAY Or Mager 2¢ru, s- Warne, J.8.C.- This is an appeal against the Judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered ‘on the 2" day of June, 1988. It was a majority judgment in a Court made up of Navo. ‘Thompson-Davis and Gelaga King JJA., Thompson-Davis JA. dissenting. Gelaga King JA gave the principal judgment supported by Navo JA. ‘There are ten grounds of appeal namely:

1. That Court of Appeal was not duly or properly constituted on the 2" June, 1988 when the Judgment was delivered contrary to the express provisions of section 107(2) of the Constitution of Sierra Leone No.12 of 1978, in that only two

(2) Justices of Appeal were present and read judgments ( 2, That the Respondents herein having filed their Notice and grounds of \

P ' i

I

Appeal on the 3” of April, 1987, the Court of Appeal erred in > Law and acted contrary to the letter and spirit of the express provisions of Rules 9 and 1) of Court of Appeal Rules Public Notice No.29 of

(@)_by allowing the Respondents to abandon six (6) out of seven (7) grounds of appeal and ‘substituting in their place two (2) completely fresh ‘grounds of appeal not hitherto included in the original Notice of Appeal some ten (10) months after the date of the decision appealed against, which was tantamount to bringing a fresh appeal months out of time; and (&) by entertaining arguments from Counsel on those grounds of appeal, and © _ by basing the substance of their decision on those iro ea

3. That when the Learned Justice of Appeal said and so held without more that: ~The Chietdon Soore Ae ctectve and only Lessor and oly they can grant a lease to a non-native, as long as the District Officer endorses his consent thereon, and the relevant provisions of the Act are complied with the. joe valid”, the Learned Justices of Appeal erred in law in that they failed to apply

gz ~ ae section 76(1) ofthe Courts Act No.31 of 1965 @BSor to observe y section 125(8) of the Constitution Act No.12 of 1978.

4. That niving at their conclusion that since the lease was by Deed , it is trite in law to say that no extrinsic evidence of the intention of the party to the Deed, from his Declaratio whether at the time of executing it, or before or after that time is admissible in theirabsence of fraud” and “Agreement EXA" and the plans put in evden Hisense, and * ‘admit no extrinsic evidence for their construction” ‘Ane Learned Presiding Justices misdirected themselves on the Jaw of the exclusion of extrinsic evidence to contradict, vary or add to documents by failing to have regard tothe facts of the case to the equitable and other legal exceptions to the above rule 5S. That in their Seucateleae 658 fa of the Laws of Sierra Leone, the Learned Justices of Appeal did not construe section 1 thereof properly or at all, and in the event gave the statute an application which is based wholly on English jurispundence on the awe of trusts and infines the applicable customary law.

6. That inall the circumstances, to hold “Bitco” had a better right of possession and Esse Tn a bewe tle, because thee lease was prior in time to Rokel$” instrument and that Bitco had, and stil has a legal estate in the land prior in time to that created by Rokel‘is an error in law in that it pre-supposes and wrongly so that EA Cop 256, provides for registration not merely of instruments but of title.

x “4: 7. ‘That the award of damages of Le6,73000.00 was wrong in Law since there was no sufficient basis to found such a claim ba

8. That when the Leamed Presiding Justices said with reference to“Ex.T” “undoubtedly” the judge did so in error” as the document clearly contravened or did not comply with Section 3 of the Evidence Documentary Act Cap.26 he erred in law in rejecting the said document in that he ignored or failed to ‘observe the provisions of section 3(2) of the Act Cap.26 or that the said “Ex.” was addressed to the Director of Mines whose representative in court was called upon to produce the same.

9. That the Learned Justice of Appeal having correctly stated the Law of trespass then proceeded to mis-apply the same to the facts of the instant case, to contradict themselves and to ignore settled decisions of higher courts binding on them contrary to the principle of Stare Decisis, thereby arriving at an erroneous conclusion onthe issue of trespass.

10. That the Learned Justices of Appeal having held that, “............ Be that as it may I do not in any case attach much weight to the map/plan in Bitco's lease since I would have some difficulty in identifying the land from it alone” ERRED IN LAW, and decided

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