Sea Coach Boat Co. Ltd v Staco Insurance Company(SL) Limited (CIV APP 30 of 2019) [2020] SLCA 36 (16 January 2020)

z Civ. App. No. 30/19 2019 INTHE COURT OF APPEAL OF SIERRA LEONE (CIVIL JURISDICTION) $ BETWEEN: SEA COACH BOAT CO. LIMITED ~ RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT 70" OFF SIR SAMUEL LEWIS ROAD ABERDEEN FREETOWN AND STACO INSURANCE COMPANY (SL) LIMITED 24 UPPER BROOK STEET _ FREETOWN - APPELLANT/APPLICANT

Coram

HON. MR. JUSTICE MONFRED MOMOH SESAY- JA HON. MISS. JUSTICE MIATTA MARIA SAMBA - JA HON. MR. JUSTICE SULAIMAN AHMADBAH ~ JA COUNSEL: Roland S.V. Wright Esq for the Appellant/Applicant Editayo Pabs-Garnon Esq for the Respondent/Respondent RULING DELIVERED ON THE _[ b1P pay or SANWALY, 2000 MONERED MOMOHI SESAY, JA: By Notice of Motion dated the 18" April, 2019 the Appellan/Applicant applied to this for the following reliefs, namely: E

1. That this Court grants an interim stay of exccution of the judgment of the 3 Honurable Mr. Justice Sengu-Koroma JA (a he then was sual sitting at the High Court now Justice of the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone) dated the 15" April, 2019 pending the hearing and determination of this application,

=

2. That this Court grants a stay of execution of the judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice Sengu Koroma JA (as he then was and sitting at the High Court now Justice of the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone) dated + the 15" April, 2019 pending the hearing and determination of the appeal i.e. Civ. App. No/. 30/19.

3. Any further and /or other order(s) that this Court deems fit.

4. Costs. ‘The application is supported by the affidavit of Adekunle Michael Aderinola sworn to on the 18" day of April, 2019 and a Supplemental Affidavit sworn to by the same deponent as the Affidavit in Support on the 10" July, 2019. ‘There is filed an Affidavit in Opposition sworn to by Editayo Pabs-Garnon on the 24" May, 2019. The matter was heard by this Court on two of its sittings i.e. on the 27" June and 11" July 2019 and on the last said hearing the Court granted an interim stay of the execution of the said judgment pending the hearing and determination of the application and reserved Ruling which we now deliver

The Evidence and Submissions of Counsel

‘The evidence put before this Court are those contained in the affidavits on behalf of both parties,

The summary of the evidence in the affidavit in support and the supplemental affidavit filed on behalf of the Appellan/Applicant are as follows:

r (a) That final judgment was delivered on the matter intitled FV. CC. 057/13

2013 S. No. 57 at the Fast Track Commercial Court presided over by Hor.

Mr Justice Sengu-Koroma JA aforesaid on the 15" April, 2019 in favour of

the Respondent/Respondent who was the Plaintitl

z (b) That the Appellant/Applicant the Defendant then, applied through his, solicitor for a stay of execution but that the application was refused.

(©) That the Appellan/Applicant filed an appeal against the said final

¢ Judgment in this Court.

(4) That there are “significant special, unique and peculiar circumstances” in this matter to warrant a grant of stay of execution which said special circumstances include:

~ that paying the judgement debt would pose a threat to the insurance industry as it would open a floodgate for speculative/fictitious and/or fraudulent claims to be brought as fake claims would be filed like playing lotteries in anticipation of winning underserved compensation.

~ that paying the judgment debt of US$187,000 would amount to granting the Respondent/Respondent an interest free loan to rescue a flagging business and/or recapitalize an expanding business to the detriment of genuine parties like the Appellant/Applicant should the appeal succeed Which appeal might last for a number of years before it is determined. ~ that paying the judgment debt would send dangerous signal to the effect that there is now an incentive for fraudulent claims (©) That a stay would not actually affect the business of the Respondent/Respondent because the vessel in question i.e. Princess Caroline has never been put to use for three years after its purchase because of its physical constraints and was therefore not generating any income.

(1) That the appeal raises serious questions of law and contain extremely good grounds that have high prospects of success. % There are twelve rounds of appeal drafted as follows

=

1. That the learned trial judge erred in law and misdirected himself when he concluded that the vessel MV Princess Caroline was insured by the Defendant at tie time of the alleged loss.

a

2. That the learned trial judge erred in law and misdirected himself by totally disregarding the terms of the Insurance Policy and the Institute Time Clause which stated that the vessel must be seaworthy and must possess a period survey report before it can be validly covered by the insurance policy.

3. That assuming that the vessel was originally validly insured, the leaned trial judge erred in law and misdirected himself by failing to consider the fact that the alleged loss occurred after the expiration of the original insurance policy and before renewal of the insurance policy.

4. That the leaned trial judge erred in law and misdirected himself by misapplying or totally failing to apply the definition of perils of the sea to the facts of the case,

5. That the learned trial judge erred in law and misdirected himself when he relied on and accepted the narrative of the Expert Witness whose narrative was discredited.

6. That the learned trial judge on his motion introduced and/or relied on evidence that was not adduced at the trial when he stated that two new: members attempted to drop an_anchor when the storm occurred but that in fact the evidence was that there was no one on board the vessel on the night it broke free

7. That the learned trial judge erred in law when he applied the doctrine of vicarious liability when he held that the Defendant was liable for the Fs alleged negligence of an independent contractor

8. That the leaned trial judge erred in law and misdirected himself by imputing liability on the Defendant on the basis ofan alleped liability of'a third Party

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