Standard Chartered Bank PLC v Ibrahim J.Bah (CIV APP 48 of 2022) [2022] SLCA 4 (15 December 2022)

CIV. APP, 48/2022 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SIERRA LEONE BETWEEN: STANDARD CHARTERED BANK PLC (THE GROUP) - APPELLANT/APPLICANT AND IBRAHIM JUBAIRU BAH - RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

Coram

HON. MRS, JUSTICE JAMESINA E L KING ~ JA (PRESIDNG) HON. MR. JUSTICE SULAIMAN A. BAH —JA HON. MR. JUSTICE MICHEAL P MAMI ~JA COUNSEL: RANSFORD JOHNSON ESQ., FOR THE APPELLANT/APPLICANT OSMAN JALLOH ESQ., FOR THE RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT. RULING DELIVERED ON THE 15" DAY OF DECEMBER 2022, ‘The Application It should be stated at the outset that, like it was before this Court sitting with a single Justice panel, ‘there are two separate files with similar applications before the court each involving the same’ Appelland/Applicant and a different Respondent/Respondent ~ a former employee ((brahim Jubairu Bah in this case, and Sulaiman Dauda Lumeh in the other). The same ‘counsel is appearing for the Appellant/Applicant in both cases. Likewise, the same counsel is appearing for the former employees. And, both counsel have agreed that the ruling on this application will apply to the other.

2. By a Notice of Motion dated the 27 day of September 2022, the Appellanv/Applicant is seeking for Three

(3) Orders, stated thereon as follows: “1. That this Honourable Court varies Order numbered (ix) contained in the | Ruling of the Court of Appeal dated the 16! September 2022 by either:

(@ removing the condition that the Appellant/Applicant pays the sum of USS500,000/00 into an interest bearing account; or

(0) alternatively and without prejudice to the Appellant/Applicant’s primary ‘request in paragraph (a) above, reducing the sum of US$500,000/00 being the arsount ordered to be paid into the interest bearing account at either Ecobank (Sierra Leone) Limited or United Bank for Africa (SL) Limited on the grounds that same is excessive, disproportionate and unsupported by existing judicial precedents. (Emphasis added).

2. That this Honourable Court makes any further or other orders that it may deem fit in

this application.

3. That the costs of this application be costs in the cause.”

2. The Motion is supported by the Affidavits of Ransford Johnson Esq. sworn to on the 30" day of September 2022 and the 12" day of October 2022, and together with the exhibits referred to in both Affidavits, filed herein; as well as the Affidavit in Reply.

‘Submissions of Counsel for the Appellants/ Applicants

|

3. Counsel for the Appellanv/Applicant, Ransford Johnson Esq., commenced his submissions by stating that he relied on the entirety of the Affidavits filed. He then went (on to submit that the application is made pursuant to section 130 of the Constitution of Sierra Leone 1991 (Act No 6 of 1991) (hereinafter referred to as “The Constitution’).

4. Further, Counsel submitted that:

‘© the Court has unfettered discretion to grant a stay of proceedings on terms; and, such terms may either be monetary or non-monetary or both;

‘© the discretion of the Learned Judge (hereinafter referred to as ‘LJ") should be based on law;

‘* the preliminary relief being sought is for the condition to be removed or in the alternative that the sums to be paid, be reduced on the grounds that sums ordered are excessive, and there is no precedent for such an order;

‘* the terms imposed by the court should not be onerous;

‘© the figure imposed stems from the sum requested by Counsel for the Respondent to be paid as a term and referred to para 5 of his affidavit in support;

‘+ he disagrees with the Respondent's claim for General Damages appearing in the Writ of Summons (Exhibit B-RJ7);

‘+ the claim relates to employment and damages for wrongful dismissal against both Defendants;

‘© the Appellan/Applicant is not the Employer;

‘+ in an employment action, the remedies for breach of contract are damages and ‘such damages are either General or Special;

© damages are always a sum assessed by the Court and relied on SC CIV APP 7/79 JESSIE ROWLAND GITTEN-STRONGE V SIERRA LEONE BREWERY LIMITED (hereinafter referred to as “the GITTEN-STRONGE’S CASE”);

‘the Respondent has not provided any legal basis for his claim and, in support of this submission, Counsel referred to para 4 of his affidavit in support and Clause 10 of the Letter of Appointment.

Finally, Counsel submitted that the court should, most respectfully, remove the term

for reduce the amount to a sum of not more than seven (7) months salaries ~ a

proportionate sum, that would allow the Applicant to prosecute the appeal.

‘Submissions of Counsel for the Responden/Respondent

5. Counsel for the Respondent, O. Jalloh Esq, filed an Affidavit in Opposition deposed to by the Respondent on the 11" day of October 2022 and relied on the entirety of the affidavit but more particularly on paragraphs 17 — 36, 53, 5S and 62.

6. Counsel commenced by submitting that the thresholds for an application of this nature to vary, revise or alter the ruling of this court sitting with a single Justice panel, has not been ‘met. He then went on to submit that:

‘+ this issue has severally been considered by the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone;

‘+ there isa long line of authorities setting the threshold that the Appellant/Applicant ‘must show that the LJ erred in law and that there are good and substantial reasons for the variation; and,

‘the good and substantial reasons must be set out in the Affidavit; and,

+ both requirements have not been satisfied in this application and that the LJ did not err when he ordered the term now sought to be varied,

Counsel referred to paras. 21 and 22 of the case SC MISC. APP 1/2015~ INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CO LTD AND ZAKHEM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED (hereinafter the referred to as INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CO LTD CASE) in suppor of his submissions.

| ‘Counsel for the Respondent referred the court to para 53 of the Affidavit in Opposition

and to para 5-7 of exhibit W thereof and then submitted that:

‘+ he had requested for 50% of what was claimed for in the Writ as a term for staying the proceedings in the High Court; and

‘+ the said Writ sets out the Respondents claim against the Appellant/Applicant for damages for breach of contract culminating in loss of employment, damages for

breach in duty and ill-treatment, and, damages for conspiracy to cause injury to the Respondent. Counsel referred to page 16 of Exhibit W — paras 70 of the Writ ~ detailing the breakdown and the Leone equivalent of what was claimed amounting Le59,828,518,816.93, an equivalent to USDS,842,297.88 in support of his submissions, Furthermore, Counsel submitted that the GITTEN-STRONGE’S CASE relate to contract ‘and not a tort action. In that vein, he submitted that:

© the ratio in the GITTEN-STRONGE’S CASE does not support the argument canvassed by counsel for the Appellant/Applicant;

‘© the fact pattern and the factual matrix in the GITTEN-STRONGE’S CASE are ‘completely different from the instant case; and,

‘© whilst Gitten-Stronge, a brewer, could go to Liberia and get a job, a banker dismissed on a pretext of gross misconduct, and more particularly, when his entire career has been banking for close to two decades, is ruined, as he must clear “the fit and proper person test’ to gain employment in the banking sector.

‘Counsel referred to para.62 of the Affidavit in Opposition in support of his submissions. Also, Counsel submitted that the LJ was right in granting the order now sought to be varied on the grounds that:

‘© the action is grounded on several limbs - contract and tort;

the Appellan/Applicant before the Court is a company resident outside the jurisdiction;

‘© based on Exhibits R, S, T, U and V of the Affidavit in Opposition, the Appellan/Applicant is the principal and ultimate owner of Standard Chartered in Sierra Leone and is about to leave Sierra Leone forever;

# there exist no Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgment between Sierra Leone and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Norther Ireland. He referred to Cap 21 of Laws of Sierra Leone 1960 in support of this submission, and thereafter asked a thetorical: Is this not justification for the order of Justice Fynn? and,

| © the LJ neither erred in law, nor was good and substantial reasons preferred to vary | the order of the Judge.

In conclusion, Counsel submitted that the papers and arguments/submissions put forward

before the LJ and those before this Court are the same and as such that is tantamount to

forum shopping. He referred to the opinion of Justice Joko-Smart in the case SC MISC. | APP. 1/2000 MOHAMED JUMAH JALLOH V T KRISHNAKUMAR (hereinafter the | JALLOH v KRISHNAKUMAK CASE) in support of his submission.

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