Sierra Leone External Telecommunications Company v Sierra Leone Telecommunications Company Limited & 1 Other (MISC APP 21 of 2004) [2004] SLCA 25 (6 July 2004)
Sierra Leone External Telecommunications Company v Sierra Leone Telecommunications Company Limited & 1 Other is a miscellaneous application from Sierra Leone on 6 July 2004. Cite it as [2004] SLCA 25. Search it by the party names, the citation [2004] SLCA 25, or Sierra Leone miscellaneous application.
July 6, 2004
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
Sierra Leone External Telecommunications Company
Appellant
v.
Sierra Leone Telecommunications Company Limited & 1 Other
Respondent
MISC APP 21 of 2004
[2004] SLCA 25
Proceeding. Miscellaneous application. Sierra Leone.
tare Pag : an es i MISC.APP.21/2004 ¥ i INTHE COURT OF APPEAL OF SIERRA LEONE , BETWEEN: SIERRA LEONE EXTERNAL ‘ TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANY LIMITED - JUDGMENT CREDITORS AND . SIERRA LEONE TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANY LIMITED AND | FIRETEX INTERNATIONAL : COMPANY LIMITED - JUDGMENT DEBTOR
Coram
Hon. Sit John Muria JA Hon. Ms. UH. Tejan-Jalloh JA Hon. Ms. NiM. Tunis J A HEARING: 6" July 2004
Ruling
— 6" July2004 Advocates: : Judgment Creditors/: N.C. Browne-Marke Esq; Judgment Debtor/: A.F. Serry-Kamal Esq; MURIA, TEJAN-JALLOH JJA, TUNIS J: This is an application for the issue of requiring the Judgment Debtor herein, FIRETEX INTERNATIONAL, COMPANY LIMITED and its Managing Director and Executive Chairman SAMUEL BOSTON-GRIFFITHS to appear and be examined respecting their ability to make good the sum of Le.61,450,000.00 adjudged and Ordered on 16" zg June, 2004 by this Honourable Court, to be repaid to the Judgment Creditors and secondly, that a WARRANT FOR THE ARREST OF SAMUEL BOSTON-
rine : on ee * a : GRIFFITHS is the alter ego of the said FIRETEX INTERNATIONAL COMPANY LIMITED, and undertook to refund the said sum of money; and that he is about to leave the without satisfying the said Judgment. ri We have heard arguments by Counsel for both parties in this matter and we feel that the application seeks to ask. coercive powers upon the: Jtidgment/debtor especially its Managing Director. _ Having considered the arguments and by the applicant and respondent, we are of the view that it would not be proper to issue Warrant of Arrest as sought in paragraph 2 of the “Notice of Motion. i We are, however of the view that we will grant the order sought in paragraph 1 requiring the Managing Director to be brought to Court upon summons to be examined as to the judgment debtors means to satisfy the orders of the Court or his means based on his undertaking, to satisfy the orders of the Court, in particular to pay Le.61, 450,000.00 to the Judgment Creditor: We therefore grant order on paragraph one sought in the Notice of Motion be in conjunction with our Order in Misc.App.20/04). Order sought in paragraph 2 is declined. Costs in the cause MMe . BY THE COURT 6" July, 2004, v
Judges
The judges named in this report. Each page lists their other judgments on Lanbuk.