Sierra Leone Red Cross Society v Ayea R.Koroma (CIV APP 92 of 2019) [2022] SLCA 6 (27 October 2022)

. . — Jo CIV.APP 92/2019 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SIERRA LEONE . BETWEEN SIERRA LEONE RED CROSS SOCIETY - APPELLANT AND AYEA ROSALINE KOROMA - RESPONDENT

Coram

HON. MR. JUSTICE REGINALD S. FYNNJ.A. (PRESIDING) HON. MRS. JUSTICE JAMESINA E. L. KING J.A. HON. MR. SULAIMAN A BAH J.A. COUNSEL: ‘A. K. Koroma Esq. for Appellant ‘Osman Jalloh Esq. & Ms. J. Noldred for Respondent JUDGMENT DELIVERED THIS 27™ DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

Background

1. The Respondent, Mrs. Ayea Rosaline Koroma, Administratrix of the Estate of Joseph Patrick Abdulai Koroma) instituted an action in the High Court against the Appellant, Sierra Leone Red Cross Society, a humanitarian non-profit Organization claiming the following reliefs: -

1. Recovery of possession of property situate lying and being at 6 Pultney Street, Freetown currently being wrongfully occupied by the Defendant.

2. Damages for wrongful occupation/possession of the said property for the period May 2013 until delivery of possession.

*

3. An injunction restraining the Defendant whether by itself, its agents, privies, servants or howsoever otherwise called from alienating, disposing of, erecting structures thereon or in any other way from

—A4linterfering with the Plaintiff's rights, interest or estate in the aforementioned land and hereditaments.

4. Any further or other relief(s) that the Court may deem fit and just and costs.

=

2. The above mentioned property was owned by the said Joseph Patrick Abdulai Koroma (Deceased Intestate) by virtue of a Conveyance dated 19" May 1989 and registered in Volume 425 at Page 135 of the Record Books of Conveyances kept in the Office of the Registrar-General in Freetown. It was later confiscated by the Government of Sierra Leone (hereinafter referred to as GoS1), following the Mrs. Justice Laura Marcus

Jones Commission of Inquiry, and was let out to the Appellant.

3. Bya GoSL White Paper on the Chaytor Committee Report, GoSL published its decision to return the property to the original owner Mr. Koroma. GoSL also duly notified the Appellant of its decision and called on it to deliver vacant possession to the Respondent, and or make arrangements for continuous occupancy.

4. Appellants commenced construction work on the top floor of the property, without any reference to the Respondent immediately after notification of the restitution. Several letters were written by the Respondent's Solicitors to the Appellant to stop the construction work. As a result of the Appellant's failure to co-operate with the Respondent's efforts towards an amicable settlement regarding its occupancy, this action was instituted

5. The Appellants filed a Defence that the said property was properly leased to it by GoSL as per letter of 25" May 1995 and paid rent of Le20,000 later reviewed to Le500,000/00 per month. The Defence further stated that by letter dated 18" February 2000 the Appellant was instructed to put up permanent structures on the said land within two (2) years or lose the property; as a result, with substantial donor funds it developed the property which is worth over Le2,000,000,000, /00 and now in use as a Clinic, office space and stores rendering humanitarian services to the public, and have acquired 3" party rights referred to in the GoSL White Paper on the Chaytor Report

6. They also relied on excerpts in the Report to the effect that where third parties have acquired legitimate interests as in the Appellant's case, where properties were returned to their original owners, a “release

bs order” from GoSL was required to take possession, and averred that the property had not been released to the Resper-ent and therefore cannot legally take possession of same from it, and denied wrongfully occupying the property.

7. The matter proceeded for determination on a point of law in the High Court pursuant to Order 17 of the High Court Rules 2007. A summary of the questions of law directed for the Court's determination related to Deceased Intestate’s entitlement tv repossess the said property following

is the orders from Government returning the property, extinguishment of the Government's interest in the property upon its return, the unlawfulness of the Appellant's continuous occupancy, recovery of the property by the Respondent, payment of a fair commercial rent for wrongful possession and an injunction against the Appellant. The application was supported by an affidavit of 34 paragraphs and 24 documents exhibited, relevant to the case of the Respondent.

8. There was an affidavit in opposition filed by the Appellant and both Counsel were heard on the application to the Court.

9. Hon. Mr. Justice A. K. Musa J. on 18 November 2019 answered the questions posed in the affirmative and delivered judgment in favour of the Respondent, and made the following orders:-

“1. That the Defendant does not have a claim of right over the property at No.6 Pultney Street, Freetown. 2.That the Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of immediate possession of the property at No. 6 Pultney Street, Freetown from the Defendant.

3. That the Plaintiffs entitled to the payment of a fair commercial rent for the wrongful occupation/possession of the property at No. 6 Pultney Street, Freetown from the period 1° May 2013 until delivery of possession thereof assessed at $5,000.00 (Five Thousand United States Dollars) or its equivalent in Leones per annum 4, That a perpetual injunction is hereby granted against the Defendant restraining whether by itself, its agents, privies or howsoever otherwise called from alienating, disposing of, erecting structures thereon or in any other way from interfering with the Plaintiff's rights, interest or estate in all the property at No. 6 Pultney Street, Freetown.

5. That costs of both this application and the action is assessed at Le10,000,000/00 (Ten Million Leones) to be borne by the Defendant.” 10.The Appellant being dissatisfied with the above Judgment filed a notice of appeal with 3 grounds of appeal which are as follows: -.

a4

1. That the Learned Judge erred in law and in fact in holding that the Appellant who is a lessee of the Government of Sierra Leone of all tho premises situate at No. 6 Pultney Street, Freetown and have acquired legitimate third party right thereof should vacate same and hand over

immediate possession to the Respondent when the issue of the Appellant's third party right was not addressed thereof.

2. That the Learned judge committed an error of law in holding that the : Respondent is “entitled to the payment of a fair comsnercial rent for - wrongful occupation/possession of the property at No.6 Pultney Street, Freetown, from the period 1 May, 2013 until delivery of possession thereof assessed at $5,000 (Five Thousand United States Dollars) or its equivalent in Leones per annum.”

3. That the judgment is against the weight of the evidence.

11. This Court has reviewed the synopsis filed and considered the authorities, records and submissions by Counsel for both parties. The Appellant is seeking to have the judgment set aside so that a full tria! can take place.

12.The Appellant's main contention in this Appeal is that its third party right was not addressed by the LTJ on the basis that, firstly, as a lessee it had expended large sums of money on the property to put up permanent structures on the instructions of GoSL, secondly that GoSL's return of the property to the Respondent was incomplete in the absence of a release order, and thirdly the court’s determination of the case on a point of law deprived it of the opportunity of a full trial as well as adding GoSL as a party to the proceedings. The other contention in this appeal is with the LTJ's quantum of rent ordered to be paid to the Respondent.

13.{t is not in dispute that having confiscated the property, possession was taken away from the Respondent and the Appellant was put into possession. It is important to note that the Appellant did not have a registered lease with GoSL neither did it have a long term tenancy or lease witha fixed term. It also did not have an unexpired tenancy; all ithad was a yearly tenancy evidenced by payment of a yearly rent. At the time Respondent asked it to vacate the premises and prior to the institution of this action, the period for which rent was paid for had long expired.

14.The Appellant had expressed interest to the GoSL in purchasing the property. GoSt had never accepted or acceded to the Appellant's request to do so. The terms and conditions of the tenancy or lease between GoSL and the Appellant were in their correspondence and there was no indication on GoSU’s part that it had an intention to guarantee any more interest to the Appellant other than as its tenant or lessee on a yearly basis.

:

15. The Appellant knew of the legal owner whose registered conveyance was valid and subsisting Sefore investing in the property e"beit on the invitation or instruction of GoSL, it behoved the Appellant to have also considered the risk in that GoSL never had the freehold to the property

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