Sierra Leone Road Transport Authority V Alie Abess (CIV APP 13 of 2013) [2015] SLCA 1130 (15 December 2015)

; io App 19/2013 156 7 CIV_APPEAL 13/2013 . IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SIERRA LEONE BETWEEN SIERRA LEONEROAD TRANSPORT x AUTHOURITY ~ APPELLANT AND ALIE ABESS - RESPONDENT ‘COUNSEL: E.E.C SHEARS MOSES Esq for the Appellant C.F. MARGAI Esq for the Respondent

Coram

‘The Honourable Mr Justice E.E. Roberts JSC then JA ‘The Hon Mrs Justice Nyawo Matturi Jones JA ‘The Hon Mr Justice Desmond Babatunde Edwards J Judgement delivered this _15™" Day of DECEMBER 2015, APPEAI

1. By Notice of Appeal filed on the 18" of March 2013 the Appellant herein appealed to this Honourable Court against the Judgement of the Hon Mrs Justice Musu D. Kamara J. dated the I“ of February 2013. The grounds of the appeal are stated as follows~: i) The Learned Trial Judge ignored the primary duty of the Sierra Leone Road Transport ‘Authority to work in tandem with the Sierra Leone Police in ensuring that the vehicles on the roads are qualified to be there. ii) The Learned Trial Judge erred when she admitted that the plaintiff was wrong to have - ‘allowed unlicensed vehicles to ply the road, and at the same time disapprove the steps : taken by the defendant to ensure that it was kept off the road by detaining it until regularised. x

, {S56

iii) The Leamed Trial Judge erred in Law when she held that only the court and no one

: else has the power of detention of vehicles that are wrongly on the road.

iv) The Leamed Trial Judge failed to consider that the defendants have a duty to keep unlicensed vehicles off the road by detention in the interest of safety of other road users, lives and property as they will not be covered by an insurance. This she said was ‘a wrongful act by the plaintiff.

: ¥) The Leamed Trial Judge having held that the plaintiff failed to mitigate his loss by communicating his having licensed the vehicle to the defendants erred in not considering this in the award of damages.

vi) The Leamed Trial Judge contradicted herself in saying that @ publication of all registered / licensed vehicles would have informed the Director of Safety and Enforcement that the vehicle ACN 379 had been licensed while at the same time ‘making the plaintiff blameworthy for not communicating to the appropriate office that the vehicle had been licensed.

vii) The Leamed Trial Judge before delivering her judgment, had on the 13" of January 2013 invited the head of the defendant's firm of solicitors and the counsel for the plaintiff into her chambers and stated in the presence of one Mr. Coker of National

petroleum, Walpole Street Freetown that she intended to find against the defendant so both sides should go into discussions, and further invited the said Mr. Coker who had 1no link with the matter to proffer opinion on the case.

viii) The Leamed Trial Judge erred in law by inviting counsel to address her on the issue of special damages though she had concluded that it had not been strictly proved.

ix) That the decision is against the weight of the evidence.

Further grounds where filed on 21" of May 2013 to wit:

x) The Leamed Trial Judge having concluded the matter and delivered Judgment on 1* February 2013 and so finctus officio erred in law to invite the plaintiff to give further evidence for assessment of special Damages on the 15" February 2013.

xi) The Learned Trial Judge erred in law to have awarded the sum of 295, 404,000.00 as special damages on 26" March 2013 when nothing wus strictly proved as required by law.

‘The reliefs sought from this court are as follows~:

i) That the Judgment be set aside and substituted by one in favour of the defendant.

ii) That the costs of the Appeal and that in the court below be the Appellant's

z Facts of the ease

‘

2. The Respondent herein the plaintiff in the High Court is a businessman trading under the name of Alie Abess Transport and General Merchandise and operates a business of public transport ferrying passengers to various parts of the country including Freetown, Kenema and Kono.

r

{St .

3. The Appellant, the defendant in the High Court is the Authority set up by an Act of , Parliament-“The Sierra Leone Road Transport Authority Act No 4 of 1996 to supervise, direct, control and regulate the operation of vehicles on the roads throughout the country. ‘Their primary duty is to ensure that all vehicles operating on the roads throughout the country . do so within the ambit of the laws of the state as provided. These laws included the aforesaid Act; The Road Transport Authority (Amendment) Act 2003; The Road Traffic Act 1964; The x Road Traffic Regulations of 1960, The Road Traffic Act 2007 and the Road Traffic Regulations of 2011 which came into force on the 1 of March 2012. They therefore have a sacred duty to ensure that there is compliance with the law so as to ensure safety of lives and property. 4, The Respondent’s Mini bus with registration No ACN379 was on the 6" of June 2011 stopped and found plying the roads in Sierra Leone retuming from a trip from the Provinces without a valid vehicle licence as the one previously in use had expired since the end April 2011.The vehicle when stopped was found to have accumulated some 12 or more ticket fines still unpaid for. The vehicle ACN 379 was asked to drive into the Appellant's Compound where it was then detained. Even after payments were effected in respect of documents viz exhibit BI-15 as levied by the Appellant Authority and the licence for the vehicle obtained on the 10" of June 2011 the vehicle was not released to the owner,

5. By letter dated 14 June 2011 the Respondent's solicitor wrote to the Appellant Authority demanding the release of the vehicle with a waming of imminent litigation if there was failure to comply to this demand for release of his vehicle. The Appellant refused and their solicitor replied on the 24" of June 2014 stating that while the vehicle was in their custody it continued to accumulate charges for each night. To this the Respondent's solicitor replied on the 28" of June 2011 that he would be grateful if the Appellant’s solicitor could enlighten them as to the law which gives the Appellant the right to detain vehicle for non-payment of fines as alleged. The replied followed on the 4" of July 2011. It being a short reply I will quote it verbatim. “We would want to invite your attention that your client's vehicle was arrested by SLRTA staff working in accordance with provisions of the SLRTA Act 2003, the Road Traffic Regulations 1960 and the Road Traffic Act 1964, for the commission of certain offences for which he is to pay certain fines which are being awaited’ ‘Meanwhile those fines as levied by the Appellant Authority had been paid since the 7" of June 201 1as evidenced by receipts exhibit BI-1 and the licence obtained from the very ‘Appellant since the 10" of June 2011.

6. The plaintiff, respondent herein, had no option but to issue a Writ of Summons against the Defendanv/Appellant herein for which the Learned Trial Judge in her wisdom gave Judgment ‘on the 1" of February 2013 forthe plaintiff respondent herein. It is this Jument dated the I ‘of February 2013 that the Appellant SLRTA now SLRSA has appealed against on the aforesaid grounds.

: ISSUES IN THIS APP! :

7. The main issues inthis Appeal may be stated thus: Firstly, Whether the refusal of the Appellant Authority to release Mini bus ACN 379 to its owner ALIE ABESS the Respondent herein as the Institution with the authority to supervise, direct, control and regulate the operation of vehicles on the roads throughout the country and * ‘moreso in the light of the provisions contained in section 2(BX2) (e) and 2(C\1)-(5) of the Sierra Leone Road Traffic (amendment) Act NoS of 2003, was unlawful and constitute detention of that vehicle amounting to detinue. Secondly, ifthe detention was unlawful whether the award of damages was carried out in accordance with law. ‘The second question becomes irrelevant if the actions of the Appellant were lawful

Consideration of the Grounds of Appeal

8. GROUNDS 1-1V were argued together and it behoves this court to consider them together rather than seriatim. These grounds concemed and justified the detention of the vehicle ACN379, to wit, that the defendant’s actions in refusing to release the Respondents vehicle was definitely within the law and correct and not in contravention of the primary duty of the SLRTA to work in tandem with Sierra Leone Police in ensuring that only vehicles that are qualified to be on the road are there on the one hand ; that the said refusal to release the aforesaid vehicle ACN 379 was geared towards ensuring that any vehicle on the road had a valid licence and that keeping unlicensed vehicles off the road was necessary in the interest of safety of other road users and the lives and property as they will not be covered by insurance.

9. The leamed Appellant’s counsel submitted that because of those reasons the Appellant had the power and authority to take hold over and detain unlicensed vehicles until they are sure it ‘was qualified to be on the road. The appellant relied heavily on section 26(B)(2)e) which provided that “without prejudice the generality of subsection I the functions of traffic warden shall include to enforce all rules and regulations pertaining to the conduct of road users including pedestrians, for the promotion of Road safety” and he submitted that this court ought to take Judicial notice ofthe fact that on the road a vehicle must be covered with insurance which cannot be so when the vehicle is not licensed.

10. The above according to the Appellant's solicitor represented the state of law and noting that the ACN379 was according to them without a valid licence and having refused to pay all the fines plus administrative charges there was more than enough reason to detain the Respondent's vehicle for_long.as they failed to comply with payment of administrative + charges and take out a valid licence. i ,

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