Sierra Leone Oxygen Factory Limited v Pyne-Bailey [1974] SLSC 1 (10 May 1974)

eye e Bt 4 | rd IN Vid SUPIASM: COUR OF SLERRA 1.cONE ' : “ye. _ ie} <p) HBP Sierra Leone Oxygen Paotory Limited — Plaintiffo/appellanta gags bs dag : . And A ai lige as | a . ; . . ow SRD AE Pe Be Pyme-Bailey . — Defendant/lespondent ete adie ; cca] ia ele ~ : . ee [EIS A Vl Judguent ae: sortvoraa ont aay tne Ju aati Ines 3 Noy 1974s dt Pt n ” Fi . * . Be i é, . a ao et ws i * <1 g GABA Brawme-Narke, J.5.C. — ‘his appeal is from ttio jul:mont of the Storra,tgone i! a Se ae . : RB ae Behe a jCoury of Appeal dated the 25th day of Nay, 1972, dismissing an appeal: Bet ‘| , co ee : eae fi SRC @MBen Order of ‘the Uigh Court dated 30th November, 1971, “ordering that the ry oe : 4 a ara s.' ae eGR cp AY ae MEE judgment in-default of appearmoe obtained on the 14th day of June, weg ae 7 re PE : wey oy ge LN SS Ge be. sot aside. : je ewe Oe od ae 14 . ‘ . Se na | ae whe proceedings were commenced by a .irit of Summons accompanied by a eS A k F eae f° epee : . . oS oes |. Statement of Claim-and dated the 24th day of Marcli, 1971. ‘he appellants _ ;: se i cs. A : ee aE | Ba FF claimed.on the said iirit, damages for breach of oontract and for wrongful... 4, | Pees) a ; i coca bat 3 4 ‘Haga detention of goods, In. the atatement of claim sicned by their Sotdotion g Leet | eet ° : eae 1 eek alt oe SHBh tho appellants alleced the following:— . ee ee BF ca. ae Brine er tis SARE 90n or about the-26th day of October, 1969 the Jefendant collected ast eg Ht f SEES" trom the Plaintiff for’ rewinding one’ (1) 05 livrue Power wlectriay ienuy i oy ace “ject. ‘Hotor No. 027490 made by Enrjco'Bazzi of Milan in 1965 which, th geet Ba ae Hf Beare: Defendanfjexamined and areed to rewind at the sum or cost of 2/3) (74 pa 2 Pigg HEP: One thousand three hundrod and fifty leonos (J.0.1,350.00). thei eae sacs fed y ik) ig Plgintiff pedd to’ the, Defendant he whole of ihe sum of Le], 350,00RHmac iH: ay a a 7 beds aM in advance atthe Defendant's request on the /th ovenber, 1959 Ben CC a | sen : wo “Sea ea) iE SP AGM ct

2. Tt-weo' an.implied tormof the contract tit the machine would eeMiiy : mid i "2 Ge" be properly and efficiently re-wound and the lefgndent impliedly: BSc aes i ee “as ERP oc Pepresentedand hold out to ‘the Plaintiff that he.head the’ necepoatyiseie ker wey IMh 5° Bags: rte Ap hi cases aU etl ““SUBLABEY * ski] ang nowledge to do so. _ we Hee ag b ek: eee vy me eee et ele SEEAPAB: So3.5 me motor was boing used at the Plaintiff's premises in the “<i%0a Bee i ig ny “%: mafufacturese oxygen and time was of the eusence of the contracts jig orneettiad | hc! UC, cairn ; il lL ce Wy °- “dai APtor 0 conuiderable delay and in early 1570, tho Defendant 1 Naas pee i & SSUMGgE .*. rehumed ‘the motor to tie Plaintiff, but the vork had been so MET PRO HT ee inatficiently carriedout that tie inductor wire would not even Sau Re eg Ul | a fit in the case and the motor’was musable. ‘he Plaintiff prere EE Lela ‘i Be, Sag uugon forthwith informed the Defmdant who after a few dayan, 9.0 Syn he di € 1 Pe Wi -.[inppected the. motor and subsequently collected it for re-winding.!!).-14 fenis'l ee a Hi | Bane: er : : at aE aad «El ( : jeu SM. "5...Up. t411 the 310¢ August, 1970, the vefendunt neither AS a 3 a | Hy cae « “Bppaired theimotor nor refunded the own of Lo.1,350 notwithotandt ngAieeeys this) 2) lem Shae AN. several, requests by. the Mlaintiff for tie Jefeadant to do aoe, Bis Fela eh cea AC Mt + Gen In the-reoult ‘te Plaintiz? indurrod coisiderable lowe white 2 Sieger amtet" |i a Bede ag: fh -the, machine yas in the possession of the Lefendant and had to. MEME naM Zit) (s ie ai, secure ‘a replacement motor to onable it to execute its contrac See a SURGE SM et cr hei@Mity, 5 : JAR arasmeatrat rl al 3]: | ell fl ime Plaintifr has sufferca’ Yoas and damage thereby. «eR ae H P| Soe Cae eet a | eee) In| st | Sep ee . “ar 1 Un Ree Tg ok , ; = AN eae ie Pcs ay (nae "a . . , Beri ateeore tae BLE Pa wt . Sw See reg eh | Ee tot the : + SAC R gs ee TS a ee Lo ‘ ea | Paes . ‘ Yo ged feo

RNS toga. ” 7 Oo an a a ~ 2 yr cn . . , . sp. rl a | q ie ‘4

7. On or about the 19th day of dusurt, 15/0, the motor was 4 ee collected ty the Plaintiff and repaired by another firm at the i eae cout of Le.54h, : ; be . ° : i a . Tanticoulars of Lous ‘and, Domaze \ tel ene” (a) Cost of obteini: — mother motor Le.3 0.) Bee ee 4 : Beaty < + i “tee wp i Sa + {b) Logs of Sales of manufactured yroducti: : 1,500.00 “2 | ad a . pares iy Ted ae 8, ume Plaintiff ‘therefore clains: oe wt ped wy . . a ide a *. (a) Special daua,ov of Lo.4,5U..00 poe Hl a ae 8 (b) A refund of the deposit of Le.1,350.v0 eelhed re a and the Plaintiff olaimd general damageo. . ad ee hos r 4 a whe affidavit of service sworn by one David homoh on 11th June, 1$71 .: .., ‘3 of eo ae ee ee Bem: stutos that the \irit of Sumons wae cerved on tue Kespondont at his place®*!'":" i ee bo ae on 7 AGES 3B oe .-, Of busiriess Siérra Ingineering Agencies, 14, Palenba oad, lreetown, on oe 4 oa a Saye ee fy. the 25th March, 1971.. The said David Nomoh swore to a second affidavit: .. rH Hf “ oY Kah .of search on the same date whiok statoc that no o,pearance had boon entered CB we : orn “os “ - Be a Hi wy or on behalf of Nespondont. . a got H od i rn . . Ste Be | Bi HBG. © - Judgaent in default vas obtained as to part of the claim-on 14th Junay” '" iF 7. ieee i : . Gh) oe oan. for.1o.1,350.0%, damages to, be acaesuea and conte. to be taxed. Theo! Ay ned ae Renee $ an, : : i och ley : Judguont tad sighed ty. kr. Williaa Jotmuon,‘tacier and Negistrar. et reg aoe On the 25th day of October, 1971, the Solicitor for t.e azpellants made. 2): t MEE a Cal ne Bee ac tesa | Bee en application for a tirit of Fieri Mociay endorued to levy Le.5,850.C0 ‘and We Ah: Ne 7 re oc Rese intorout theréon st the rate of Le.1u.u. per cont per annum ao from 14th“ sbi fe: ee Bt Baa ae Juric, 1971. ‘The Denitty Nauter ant keistrar sizned the writ of Meri Feoias : le ae See : : a ies: a behalf ofthe Hiaster and Nogivtrar to levy oxncittion for Le.5,850.0uewith Ur" i | fae Boel : “ seem) t hare Ses) Antorost at 4 per-cent rer annum. : a : tA e ae tos suit * aay 2a ae nei’ / Ty notdoe of jotion datod 2nd Novenber, 1972, tir. hk. 0. backay arise Eh iH tal ie a ae ; bho caeete TaN eRe a Agithe High Court on behalf of the lespomdont for an Order that the judgnentst.: i a Bio Pomel |i) an dndefault of appearance doted the 14th day of June, 1$71, bo uet oatae bat ale HeMy | f . sxtortlon thére-under be stayed for tho roauonn siiown on the affidavits: oH d 1 | ‘ BAERS oe at inane : . cia reed || eee Sc Respondent. sworn on th¢Spame date. Further that the statement’ th a ah Fee FF Sees aoe cota rertes Mist il a Defénce ‘exiibited by the Respondent be filed and served on the orvenlatta lc ae Rs. ies ee sk 3 il : i te Jol gence ages Saat] js Sodostor. ; Re aeeescteall| OM | age Soliotter, “. See RNR i cn eee: 0 Poesia Sag] ae : ne) a. ee eed . aly 4 : Reine : WW Bae vt . Ea 7 . eee —

SeBQep ec ; /HEY j ns a) t ° ' whe .. . i cael en fr whe application ca: u; burore kon Yaring, J. on jth November, 1571, F : wate ¢ : “ 4 a but wx. Rackay on behalf of kespondent/Apolicant. requested an «djournment i % F< on the ground that it wa: short served. ‘he uljovrned date vas $th November, are FYE a3) & SG 1971, on which date pr. NarcusJoneu appeared Zor Anrellants/itespondents iy Pare ee Y ! hod E t. sas pe | ond kr. lackay on behalf of Ker: -ondent/Appliciat. 2 3 See ane we WEE fe. 9 After hearing Counsel for both varties and reading the affidavit filed ~ + 4 Bie id : id& ES PS ge aes y re in uuy-ort by the Applicant/ies-ondent the am,lication uas refuued.” No: + eae os . - # ° a TEP YY ise ~, wentipn vas made of the Statewent of Yefonce which was exhibited. ‘ 4 4 20 : + mt pit pare ae "| On 1th November, 1971) Tir, fackey entered an appeurance in the Bastor'n th | “Vo TERRE ofties on behalf of the Respondent. Un the wae date he filéd another notice ri te epee a e ¥ : ate vrs # ae of motion for+an Order that for the reasons shown in ihe affidavit of,the ah peed ics uy SS ge wr CF Es “e ore. ee Kespondent/Ayplicant whichrwas alo filed, the ‘wit of Vieri Facias and the =i-/ 4 \ oe cig: . OY ae ale ft M whole proceedings be set aside on the ground of irregularit;. a Eee a Om the 12th cay of Rovenber, 1971, defers vojan, J., Tir. ogerairight 3 bectahe a | <48: a . ce lice: |} with Kr, Mackay appeared on behalf of Neuvondent/Azplicaat. Counsel for a Agave . Sy Bee! ase) Al Appollants/iespondents raised a-prelininary objcction that the motion was e Se ee | ~ . : f SAE @eec Wf phort served and vejun, Jj, ordered an interim stay of execntion of the wr: Ae hi a 10 a an interim f tion of the writ ih Berea oat * hs zy ae of Vieri Facias. - . a Bere On 30th November, 1977, the raid motion case before ‘ojan, J., and aftor im SR a . ; : f . ‘i Soe Ea * hearing Counsel for. both swtien, the learned judge ruled ag follows: i pea oc! ' * a . et ee "Y have connidere? the raysnonty-of beth Counsel, ‘hore is no ye cee as doudt a breach of: they ruleu hay been cowed. in the interost . if Sota Cs of Justice, t allow ine ayplic.tion to net ctide the jud_ent. . HT 2 FA Bg) Corte in the cruse.” BL eo nae On Wth veceidver, 1571, vojan, J. zranted an aplication by Counsel j Bana ; . ooo : HH ei i ed for Aypollents/apylicante for leave to appeal ».ainst the interlocutory : an hh ee : Be RS Ea Bs ss) judgnent of the 430i Hovenibay, 1971. whe anplicetion was supvorted byyan give: ic 4 rf Bera 4s: a@ Uo pe zy Hag © offidevit sworn by the soiioitor ‘for appollant: on 7th Lecenbor, 1971s" Re ms oy |: : SHER © 5 | ead Ba The (round of ap;cal as recorded was . ca RE ‘on Bee ian Ok Beat oe ‘wuat the Learned JrialJudgo had no‘ jurisdiction to imtortain “| Saal | Hae | Ba the Nospondent's Notice of motion dated 10th November, 1971, “ah aha a |) ae ie . dy 'revson of the fact that on the Sth day uf November, 1971, 4444 Peet | | | Le * the High Court of Sierra Leone by an order of the Hon. ie... tHE veal ie n cola Justices ‘Kon 0, During had dismissed a vimilar application nade ieee | iy Stratis | 77: a by the Notice of notion dated 2nd November, 1:71, which sadd .ayajset gate regiilgt uh vale ANA « order remains in full force and offoct." este ee AE | Se . Sr eee): a Seat BS Tg oe aban pee | Perle ia ; ae ee Suey og . ae Ga “paae fil: Sea A ’ ace et eer IIH * il " : i pe at pare. . . ey i au EE

epeo.c a te a 150 7 pe fe | ag Whe appeal waa heard by the iiexra Leone Court of Appeal on 24th and : ef’ 25th tay, 1972. ‘she. judgucnt of tho Court Wole, Cs J., iirding and Davies . tap SESH ‘Ja/a) was as follows:-' : a is pe ee, Aa ve oa Bed "In the interest of Jvistico we foe] that the matier s.onl4 it ' aes go to trial. ile i!.erc\ore invoke our youer:: under iule 36 . a {7 oa of the Court of Ap eal Mules and dismiss the appeal. lo wat fe ape order as to costu." - : be [pop Counel for Appellantg.pp.lied to tat Court for leave to wjpeal from‘its oo. bie Sin “ . a Be , z,, dudguont of 25th ay, 1972 diumisuin;; the ayeal of Az; ellants. Conditional ¥ if Beas ae : * : q eh. Dae leave to appeal to tie Su;reme Court was given on 30th Yune, 1972 and Final ae eo iS" leave on 13th July, 1972. 1 aa aie Im tho ease for nyellants the principal queution raised were i ve ae (i). What: the jud:went of Hen During; Je, of Yth Luvenber, a! i neq a a 197], wa: rerular and that the iii Court in Lo NE, BRP ee | exercisin: it: undoubted discretion Yound no jwerit Tens Gey. - in the application to cet it auido and properly . Ve qem refused leave to the kespondent to defond action. ie Pepe ee ‘mat in ihe cirewastences a further application to | hee Be ae the same tribunal wau ina; ropriate and untenable ~* oan sin uae ‘exceyt by way of leave to apzeal. ay Re Sa . : batt ee eee 7 (44) ‘hat ihe effect of the Order of Yejah; J.; was to 4 es ERLQRE c= . ‘reverse: t3.0 ducision of nen Yering, J., althouy!i the ce Eek Sear Heepondento' Vounuel had’ ssecifical); stated that it . ee ge meas (iS °° ‘Gas a motion vor an order to. set aside jud,ment f ae env ae obtained on 14th June, 1472, on the iwounds of re rae a ad irrejularity. . . i fan eae an ~ . . wil pe my ne that the rowdl if irre jlarity alle: ed with hi ie ovina respect to t:¢ juddbént of L¢th Suns, 1971, wore . * iki ie EE Pees naither net vut in the motion dated luth jovember, iar ss Fo wea . 1971, au recrired by Order 50 iule 3, nor +as any oe oe shown in i.e urgumenty.of Counsel, nor any specified. a. eee ee vy wejan, J., an justifying hin order ‘to tet avide, we ‘ Reid Sth a ° Beas yaa iia Co ee Suet a (443) ‘hat the remedy, if any, open to the Hegjondent wad to «is, i Digs mee: ao? apply fora utay of thé rit of Picri Facian (Order 30 tule ge i Jo ees a (16a) ov to aypeal™to tue Gourt of Appeal frou the | fr: AAP Be as BS Order of During, J. ° foresee. BBR ae ae caer ep Ee eee. (iv) what judges of equal juricdiction could not reverse | MSF shit i Paes aa BE sieee each other whether on a iwatter involving exercise ee ae Ae oan fe Oe gxa: caus of ddforetion or otlerwine. pases Pris) ee 2 cae oemeer ees eres rama 0 Ae ocastise ADS AER 2s: Cotnnel ‘for Appellants eubuitted:— epee ial ban ok Be ae bey - Peer rece! | Real ea) aa Beer “"Met-sineo the appeal before it wan from the judg- Rae ee | He i Sh ae * ment or ordoi, of ‘Yojan, J., the Court of ap;eal ees aero | a ee Fc . Gould not. properly or validly have exeroised itu ages oR eee eats: peters under tlule 36 of the Court of Appeal ltulea., afer is aa tee 7 ABR ee : commerce (1 | Sie i te : GATE EES: Ae ae a aia a . fee oe Ag Pe Bee ae en Pie sg e . he Sea Se = rf '

Boia: r +: . . SpNeod | ID) skic Be EB eee In the cage for the keupondont the principal questioas vaiasd ‘wore :~ Ke iy oR gc: “4(4) Mother the veputy feator ani iogiatrar on ah sed 2 25th Ociober, 1$72, had juristiction to cima Be bbe iy Wit of wHeri Mecias for the vam of 10.5,%50.0u - gk “2 FS ad .) ¢ ' when the judzaent of ith June, 1971, referred Seto: ce Lint | ai Wd . t. to in bo said Writ wea for the sua of La.1,350.00 ven . ae , ae ; occas ee . tex(44) Whethor the e>-licetion befors Ken During, Jo, Wagga eect uae See Bits Sonal tae the son os that before ‘Yejan, J. -aNaphigal ise Tate nso at Beg - er, ee cg Rear oe. It'mst be stated at this yoint that the application by Respopmant™ ao-3 Shy | awe cee! Rane wed ae : Beier eerie et oa SEF RS a) vaatod 2nd November, 1971, waa for an order that the judmentiinagatay es Be i a eel ae ASS | rae cc y ; — Sf ta anata ate seo 24 SRV stayed forthe roasonu stated in tho affiduvit. “he vocond roa ae TERRES hes SOMES 6! FEARS CES rls Shy he Bee waa for an ordor that.for the reasons shown in the affidavit of Yhe,heds a i eam See NE ee pa 2 Rea nonde;it, siiorn .on -the..10+th Novanbans¢: Sibi Sta ease tiaaoeemants ee See a oe oe ie en ne crunmageaiieslieins Uae SRT ae Sei fie eae Ht. thauiholeumragasumnGnaavae pach daxontheitnomdunsiert maar ity Scie si “ee cai camer eke ‘ ‘ “Seamer as eae | ee: whe’ Deputy Laster ané iegictrur on behalf of the taster and Wegistrar: "EF Beate ct: eee ete, ae By vad fe signed a writ of Fieri Facias on 25th October, 1971, but_no mention lias p36 50% -% ay ee MA’ nade of it in the notice of motion dated 2nd Noveuber, 1971. = vi ED Sete: ES pg fe a ee aa ae A Dy order 23-imle 15 of the igh Court imles “Any judinent wyiderault fe oe A Sos MERE Be HE [EB hethor under this order or ynder any other of theye:iwles, may be jgetiaside nic Seca Cee: A we ge a tae aes fe 4 “bythe Court upon such terms az to cost or otherwise, as such Colirt may as Be Bae 3 . aes nrars Sig ik Selle Tok SRS i think fit." By ordex 50 iule 3 "Where an application is made. tonact aside nae . To SRE a : . os conga speaeat'sc Se ane) oe : : ohare ee 2 ith ee {proceedings for irre;ularity, the several objections intended ts, bo. neato! 4 LESS Be 3 . eG Sg TH edd =. upon shellvbe stated in tho sumons or Notice of Motion." ihe tapplioution’::% Sy eee vores Boies Ria: | raat: beskial » Teer igs keg a * le aq before; Ken During J. of the 2nd November, 1971, did npt avoatih pho: reaitart a BEA: ert: Meet yee RRS ae ali aa Feil CARRIOUEA of the 'Hjudiment ; eltnough the writ of Heri aciaa had already vesnd udder aes pa eee the’respondent only. requested thatthe stutenent.of defonook SHUR CH CARS cA pa SACS, RSC e ve i. . res ess saoesmert Pe fF eized and “eerved off ppellent's solicitor, Kon during J. in NMR ce SE IR ee a i eee | cee Fe. Give. no-reasons forgrofusing the application knd one cannoté aprer peony Pee g i: as at fo aa ee Bt \ Hie acta. be conisidered the Tediaca ptétenent of defence’ before decidir Tne arAn s SERS application respondent reliod on Order 23 Ile 12 which provider inate AN es : Pte BR ge: : ean a * . Beep AIESY Sa ee ce ae eA neg oe one party doesnot appear at me ee ' SHE a REET : “ Teh area Rane a ca a aoiaeSnaa peter 0 to whether this rule led Ken ‘Dur rr cetoheqrat ect FF UE A Be oe SE, SP, 4 PRE ema hes es sek ore ua Ae ‘i «tie sobliggtion, une siearence entored:on ot Novoubor Ai Maa neee a An | Bah ccc Rear oem ar Cac oe eee Ey i Pita; | unoonddtignals: whe aplication before ‘jan J, was nade" ay eoearane in 4 Ca RES Baie Pac: os ORE eaemenener | Lae Nha oo Ts: : . : Bemescce re Cae a am SSDS EE ofl esis Hie ae a meal] : eee 0 OMe edhe | ee : OE SEE, | Re : ae SES ' 295, aeeeemmengsssmmneesmmemmonreereemumei n, =. alee eer eS, Sa: ees stomatal