Sorie Tarawallie v Sorie Koroma (SC CIV APP 7 of 2004) [2007] SLSC 12 (16 March 2007)

ow fos [| u | f . AUILE SUPREME COURT OF SIERRA LEONE . if S.C.CIV.APP 7/2004 . BETWEEN: SORIETARAWALL] APPELLANT AND SORIE KOROMA = RESPONDENT (As Administrator of the Estate of Serie Mansaray)

Coram

HON. JUSTICE DR. ADE RENNER: : HON MRAIUSTICERC.THommsonoues, SUIEFSUSTICE HON. MRS. JUSTICE V.A.D. WRIGHT - Isc HON. MR. SUSTICE MR. M.E.T. THOMPSON IS.C. HON. MS. JUSTICE

8. KOROMA - OTA AMADU KOROMA ESQ. FOR THE APPELLANT MRS. J. KING FOR THE RESPONDENT * oe ) JUDGMENT PELIVERED tHE “Ab Day oF MARCH, 2057, RENNER-iHOMAS, C.J. This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated the 21° day of April 2004 in favour of Sorie Mansaray, the Plaintiff in the High Court. The said Plaintiff died before the determination of this Appeal and was ordered to be substituted by the Respondent herein, Thus all references to the Respondent herein include, where the context so : Permits one.to. the Plaintiff in. the Higk.Court,-By thé said Tudsment ths , Court of Appeal set aside that of the trial judge in favour of the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “the Appellant”) dismissing the claim of the Respondent and made the following orders:

“LA declaration that the title to all that piece or parcel of land and hereditaments situate lying and being at 43 Will Street, Freetown in the Western Area of Sierra Leone vests in the Plaintiff 3 Damages for trespassing onto the plainti’s land at 43 Will Stret,

Freetown in the sum of Le69,000.00 be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant

5S 7 ftention restraining the defendant, by himsel, his servants, agents, Sela the "Twise from continuing their trespass onto the said land by remaining thereon or in any way dealing with the said land. 1 4 Costs of the proceedings in the court below i ni and this appeal be costs to the °— plaintiffappeliant to be taxed ifnoy agreed." 3 The Respondent's claim was ing reli ir inact felons. ‘or the following reliefs contained on the () A declaration Of title of all that Piece of parcel of land and + jereditaments situate lying and being at 43 Wil Street, Freetown inthe Westem Area of the Republic of Sicra Leone. @) Damages for wrongfully entering the plaintiff's land at 43 Will Street, Freetown, destroying property beacons and his fruit trees. : ) An injunction restraining the said defendant, by himself, his trespass 7 Bents oF howsoever otherwise from continuing their \respass upon the said land, by remaining thereon or in any way dealing with the said property. For reasons which will become more apparent later in this judgment it is important to set out in extenso the particulars of the Respondent's claim ae indorsed in the Writ of Summons and the defence filed by the Appellant herein in answer to the Respondent's claim. The particulars of claim are as follows:- “The Plaintiff is and was at all material times the ‘owner and entitled to Possession of a piece or parcel of land and hereitaments situate lying and U}" being at 43°Will Street Freetown in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone a description whereof is as follows:- “Starting from beacon marked FC591/30 on an bearing of 119°24" for a distance of 92.96 feet to beacon marked FC592/80 on a bearing of 21°01" for a distance of 147.0 feet ‘hed FC593/80 on a bearing of 312°15° for a to beacon mar] : distance of 49.0 feet to-beacon marked FC942/79 on a bearing of 22°43" for a distance of 1340 feet to beacon marked FC591/80 which is the point of commencement thus enclosing.

. a

an area of 0.2247 acre or thereabout as is delineated on the Survey Plan numbered L.S. 694/80 dated 30" April 1980”.

(1) The Plaintiff became seised of this said piece of parcel of land by means of a Statutory Declaration dated 17" December 1982 by the Plaintiff - supported by Sorie Turay and Santigie Sesay registered as No.222 of page 30 in volume 22 of the Books of Statutory Declaration kept in the office of the Administrator and Registrar General Freetown.

(2) The predecessor in title of the plaintiff being his father Langima Mansaray (Deceased) had been in full, free and undisturbed possession of the said land for a considerable period of time preceding the date of the said Statutory Declaration as is evidenced therein.

(3) On or about May 1992 the defendant and his agents wrongfully and without any proper or lawful right or title entered the plaintiff's land removed plaintiff's beacon and destroyed his fruit trees. Thereafter the defendant set himself up as owner of the said property to the detriment of the plaintiff and his heirs.

(4) By reasons of the matters aforesaid the plaintiff has been subjected to humiliation and has suffered great mental anguish and stress and he has been deprived of the use and enjoyment of part of his said land and has suffered loss and damage.

Particulars of Special Damage

(a) Two beacons destroyed at 2,500.00 each = Le5000.00 ] (b) Three pear trees at Le6,000.00 each . - Le18,000.00 é (c) Four Guinea Mango trees at Le10,000.00 each = —_Le40,000.00 (@ Banana Trees destroyed = Le6,000.00 Le69,000.00

(3) Despite repeated requests and demands by the plaintiff and his Solicitor to the Defendant to vacate the plaintiffs land he has still failed refused or neglected to do so and threatens and intends unless restrained by an injunction from this Honourable Court to continue in occupation of the said land and to trespass thereon." The defence filed on behalf of the Appellant stated as follows:-.

ay | “The Defendant cannot admit or deny paragraphs 1,2, and 3 of the Rariculars of claim but will aver thet the Win Street to which the same relate is not the same place or Street as “Off Morgan Street”. ) } 7 i) The Defendant as to ‘Paragraph 4 of the particulars of claim will aver that he is the owner of a piece of parcel of larid, situate, lying and being OFF MORGAN STREET, Freetown, by virtue of a conveyance of sale dated 17" January, 1989, cared as No.71, at Page 99 in Volume 422 in the Book. ef Conveyances kept in the Office of the Re trar-General ept i gist in Freetown, bounded ¥ @) The Defendant will further aver as to paragraph 4 of the d Paragrap! ' particulars of claim that neither the Defendant not his ( Ggents did the several acts complained of on the Plaintiff's land. : @) The Defendant as to paragraph 5 of the particulars of claim will aver that the Defendant by his Solicitor fixed appointments on at least 2 occasions with the Plaintiff through his Solicitor to visit both the Plaintif’s land and tie . Defendant's land to ascertain any encroachment if any with the assistance of Surveyor but that the plaintiff failed to turn ’ up as arranged. Further the Defendant will aver that if the Plaintiff suffered as alleged in paragraph 5 of the particulars of claim, he the Defendant is not responsible or in anyway liable for same. ;

(4) As to paragraph 6 of the particulars of claim, the Defendant repeats paragraph 4 of this defence. ~

(3) Save as” is “hereinbefore specifically admitted. the 4 Defendant denies each and every allegations of fact as if the same were set forth and denied seriatim”. A reply was filed on behalf of the Respondent in the following terms:- “(1) Save that the Plaintiff admits that “Will Street” is not the same as “Off Morgan Street”, the Plaintiff denies paragraphs + one (1) and two (2) of the Defence herein and repeats that he is the owner of the land and premises situate lying and being at

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