S v Irene Young & 2 Others (SC CR APP 1 of 1976) [1977] SLSC 11 (15 March 1977)

S.C. ER. APP. NO. 1/76 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SIERRA LEON,

Coram

The Honourable Mr. Justice C.0.€,Cole’ = Chief dustice The Honourable Mr, Justice £, Livesey Luke Justice of the upreme Court The Honourable fir, Justice C, A: Harding - Justice of the Supreme Court The Honourable fir, Justice 0.8.R, Tejen - Justice of the Supreme Court Tha Honourable Mr. Justice K.£,0. During = Justice of Appeal. THE STATE - APPELLANT ve. 4

Joseph Koroma

SAMUEL FOULER - RESPONDENT ™.S.Turey, Esq., Solicitor General with him Benkole Thompson, Senior State Counsel and Mr, Koroma, Stote Counse1 for the State. D.H. Smythe Eaq., Q.C. with him Mrs. H. Ahmed for the ‘1st Respondent. N.D. Tejan-Cole, Esq., for the 2nd Respondent. No Appearance by or on behalf of the 3rd Respondent.

RULING delivered on Ruesday. ASTD. day of mareny 1977. Livesey Lue 9,8.¢.

By Notice of Motion dated 3x6 August, 1976 the Attorney-General on behelt of the State applied to the court Court of nppent for leave to appeei to this Court against the Judgment of the Court of Appeel detivered on 6th duly, 1978 scauitting and ossenerging the abovecnentioned 1st Respondent on cartoin counts of Falsiticstion of necounts fond of Larceny and the sbove-nentioned 2nd and 384 Respondonte on certain counts of Larceny. By Order dated the 20th day | oF August, 1976, the Court of nppeal granted eave to the Stato to eppee to this court and ofdered that the Notice Of Appenl be Fated within one month from the date theseor.

Uren the Appeal come up for hearing before this court, Ne. B.M.Snytho Cs Learned Counsel for the tet Respondent raised & Prolininary object (Wotice of unieh ha hod previously f4ied and served) to tho hearing of the eppesl by thie Court on the following grounds

"That the Appeai 1s not properly before the court es the nppeliant nas not obteined Finel Leave te sppent.

Milk Smythe besed Nie Prelisinary objection on Rule 66 of the. Sierre Leone Court of peel Rules, 1973 (Ho. 20 of 1973) unten As An the following terse: Leave to appeal to the Suyrena_courts in pursuance of the provisions of any lov reluting to auch appaet nolL An the Fret snetance be granted by the court only upon condition of the appellant, within @ period to be Fixes by the Court but not exending three sonthe from the noating of the application for leave to apes! Providing good and eurfietent security, to the satterection of the Court, in 8 sum aot excesding one thousend Leones /tor the due

for the due prosecution of the appeal and the payment of alleuch costs os may become payable to the respondent in the event of tiv appellant not obtaining en order granting him final leave to apical or of the appeel being dismissed for noneprosecution, on of the Supreme Court ordering tho appellant ot pay the respondents! casts of the appeal as the case may be,"

Before proceeding further, I think that it is necessary to onphasise thet this rule reletes to cases where an appellant applies to the Court of Appeal for keave to appeal. It does not affect cases uhere the appellent appeals to the Byprene Court as of right or uhere he applies to theSucrome Court for special leave to appeol. Oifferent provisions (other than Rule 66) apply to the tuo latter cases.

Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent submitted with much force that under Rule 66 an appellant must first obtoin from the Court of Appeal conditions] leave to apoeal that it vas mandatory for the Court of Appeal to impose conditions for the appelient to give good and sufficient security (a) for the due prosecution of the appeal and (b) for the payment of costs, and that after complying with the conditions Fixed by the Court of Appeal, the appellant should apply to the Court of Appoal and obtain therefrom final leave to appeal. Learned Counsel submitted thet if the Court of Appeal Failed to fix the requisits conditions of appeal, or if tho appellant failed to comply with the conditions fixed or if he did not take any of the steps laid down, thé Supreme Court could not property entertain the appeal. Mr. N.D, TeJan-Cole, Learned Counsel for the Respondent argued in support.

On @ literal reading of the Rule, Learned Counsels! submission is sound. I agree thet in the normal case the Court of Appeal must fix the conditions of appeal in accordance with

Juith the provisions

the provisions of tho rule and the appellant must comply with those conditions and then apply to the Court of Appeal for final leave to appeal. :

Gut the important question for determination is whether Rule 66 applies to the instent oppeal. In order to ansver this question it ie necessary to examine the con ditions laid doun in Rule 66.

Aa stated earlier tho rule lays doun tuo conditions which the Court of Appeal must fix in granting conditional Leave to eppeal 1.0. provicing good end sufficient security (41) for the due prosecution of the appeal and (ii) for the paymont of costes ;

with regard to the first condition, it is relevant to refer to Section 66 of the Constitution of Sierra Leone, 1971 which provides os followsi= *

"65

(1) There shall be @ Solicitor-General whose office shall be © public office and he shall have power in any case An uhieh he considers st desirable so to do~

(0) to institute and undertake créminel

proceedings against eny person before any court in respact of eny offence against the lau of Sierra Leones

(b) to take over and continue any such

eriminel proceedings that may have boon instituted by any other person or authority; end

(ce) to discontinue at any stage before

Judgment is delivered such erd@inel procendings instituted or underteken by himself or any other person oF authority. [tho Soiicktor-Genersd

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