Sylvia Blyden v Chief Electoral Commissioner And Others (SC CIV 6 of 2018) [2018] SLSC 9 (18 July 2018)

pba, ao . Sup-Ct case No 6/2018 ny 2 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SIERRA LEONE Metre ie

BETWEEN: 2 $ DR SYLVIA BLYDEN - PETITIONER/RESPONDENT AND

1. THE CHIEF ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER - RESPONDENT

2. NATIONAL ELECTORAL COMMISSION - RESPONDENT

3. HIS EXCELLENCY JULIUS MAADA BIO- - RESPONDENT/APPLICANT 4, STERRA LEONE PEOPLES’ PARTY ~ RESPONDENT/APPLICANT CORAM; THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE NC BROWNE-MARKE, JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE E E ROBERTS, JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT | THE HONOURABLE MS G THOMPSON, JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT COUNSEL; 1 SOURZE, £5 fer the Petitioner, DR SYLVIA BLYDEN, MS BERYL CUMMINGS and 0 E TAYLOR ESQ for the P anc 2 Respendents & BANDA- THOMAS ESQ, A SANGARIE ESQ, M MEWA ESQ. SUB SAFFA ESO and J A KALLON ESQ for the Respondents/Applicants L DUMBUYA ESQ for Br S MW KAMARA, ts? Petitione: in Sup Ct Case No | 7/2018 ang the other 2 Petitioners RULING DELIVERED THE | Ebay oF JULY, 2018, BROWNE-MARKE, Sc THE APPLICATION

1. This is an Interiocutory Application filed on 29" May, 2018, brauaht on behalf of His Exceilency Rtd Brigadier Julius Maade Bio, “hereafter, HE The President, and the Sierva Leone Peoples Party, the 3° and 4* Respondents respectively, in the Etection Petition brought by Dr Sylvia Biyden againsy the x

Be election of HE The President as the winning candidate in the last - Presidential election, As regards that part of the heading used by the * Applicants’ Solicitors in this Application in relation to the parties, it should be noted that the Chief Electoral Commissioner and the National Electoral Commission, cre not Applicants in this Application. It is incorcect therefore * to describe them as such, The Application seeks to consolidate the Petition brought by Dr Blyden, that is, SC case 6/2018 with that brought by Dr Semura Kamara, Alhaji Minkailu Mansarsy ond Dr Osman Foday Yansaneh, that is, SC Case 7/2018. In Dr Blyden's Petition, the Respondents are respectively, the Chief Electoral Commissioner, The National Electoral Commission, HE Julius Maada Bio, and the Sierra Leone Peoples’ Perty. In the Petition brought by Dr Samura Kamara arid 2 others, the Respondents cre three in number; Mohamed N'fah Allie Conteh, the National Electoral Commission, and HE Rtd Brig Julius Maada Bio. 2, For convenience, all references to the “Petitioner”, are references to Or Blyden: references to 1" and 2" Respondents, are to the Chief Electoral Commissioner and the National Electoral Commission respectively: ‘references to the Respondents/ Applicants are to HE The President ond the ‘LPP, respectively; and references tu the 2"! Petitioner are to Dr Semura Kamara, the 1" Petitioner in the Petition filed on 9th Apri, 2018 and alzo representing the other two Petitioncrs in that case LETTERS/MEMOS FROM THE PETTTTONER

3. Before the Application was first heard last Thursday, the 12" instant, this Court's Registry received two lettars/ “eras from Dr Biyden, stating th she was away From the jusivtietior. <0 tha first, dated the 9” instunt, she sald she would instruct Counszi to appee on her behalf if the Court was minded to proceed, and that she. had only been served with Notices of AY Appearances by the 3 and 4" Responcants/Applicants, but not with the “Motion herein, In her second ‘etter, she stated that she had instructed Mir <i» Lansana Dumbuya te appear as Counsei on her behalf. On Monday lest, the 16" instant, the Registry received cnother piace of correspondence from Dr Blyden, bearing the same date, Ct was 2udressed to the Master and Registrar of the High Court, and 9 tie Registrar of this Couer, Ta tha: 7 letter or memo, Dr Blyden First purports te insteust this Coury's Regist-cc

| and the Master and Registrar, to draw this Court's attention to a $ “Certificate which she says was issued by the Registry. She also contends : that the Applicants herein lack locus standi for failure to comply with Rule | 92 [1] of the Supreme Court Rules, 1982 - hereafter ‘‘the Rules” She also | states that contrary to what is deposed to in the affidavit of service of | ¢ Eustace Sorbeh, she has no of fice at Rawdon Street. As to this contention, we note that in her Petition, she stated her address for service as 24 Garrison Street. It is an address within walking distance of this Court, and we know where it is vis-2-vis Rawdon Street. In her 3° paragraph, she alleges that this Court '....is rejecting’ [sic] for Lansana Oumbuya esq to represent my interests which diverge from interests of his other clients in related matter SC7/2018...' As to this allegation, the true position is that ‘Mr Dumbuya informed this Court that as Solicitor and Counsel for Dr ‘Samura Kamara, the 2 Petitioner; he had no objection to the application for Consolidation; but that as Counsel for Dr Blyden, he had insiructions +0 oppose the same. These were evidently contradictory instructions. This Court then drew his attention to ‘the Legal Practitioners’ Code of Conduct which instructs Counsel as to what he should do in such circumstances, arc directed him to so inform Dr Blyden. As Mr Sourie did cppecr before us on the 16" instant for Or lyden, it is clear our guidance was taken in good part, PRINCIPAL ORDER SOUGHT By THE APPLICANTS

4. To return to the substance of the Application before us, it is for the two Petitions I have referred to supra, to be consolidated into one action: dir Banda-Thomas, Counse! for the Applicants, duriny Ihe course of arguinent, indicated that this was the purport of the Application, and, aot that both Petitions should be tried or heard simultaneously, another course. of Proceeding which this Court could order. The basis of the Application is Order 4, Rule 4 of the tigh Court 2ules, 2007, hereafter, HCR, 2007. There 15 No provision in our Ruies for actions to be consolidated, but Rule 98 states that where no rules have been expressly provided for the procedure to be followed in any process maintaina3t: in this Court the appropriate High 4 Court Rules should be used ins2ad. + ORDER 4 RULE 1 OF THE HIGH couRT RULES, 2007

t |

5. Order 4 Rule 4[1] HCR, 2607 is the eppropriate Rule, I+ states: “Where tuo | 7 or more causes or matters are pending in Court, and on an application to the

ee Court or Judge it appears to the Court or Judge that; [a] some common gestion of law or Fact arises in both or all of them: [6] the rights to relief claimed in the causes or matters are in respect of or, arise out of the sane * Transaction or series of transactions: or, [2] that For some reason it is desirable to make an order under this sub-rule, the Court or Judge may order these causes or matters to be consolidated an such terms as it thinks Just or, may order them to be tried at the same time, or, one immediately after another: or may order ary of them to be stayed until after the determination of any of them.

[2] Where the Court or Judge makes on order under subrule [1] that two or more causes or matters are to be tried at the Same time, but no order is made for those causes or orders tobe consolidated, then a party to ane of those causes or matters may be treated as if he were a party to any of those causes or ‘matters for the purpose of | making an order for costs against him or, in his Favour” As T have indicated above, the preference of the Applicants is that both actions should be consolidated rather +han both being tried at the same time, ORDER 4 RULE 9 WHITE 800K 1999

6. Rule 4 HCR, 2007 is verbatim et literatim (vero ite] Order 4, Rule 9 of the English Supreme Court Rules, 1999 - White Zook, 1999, The Hick, 2007 Permit reference to the notes to those rules where they are the same a3 Gurs, The relevant notes to those rules are at page 40 of the Whits foeh They state: “A cause or matter is pending’ for the Purpose of this rule as scon as the writ is issued, and therefore the court has jurisdiction to entertain an application for the consolidation of two er mare causes or matters eng though one or more of the wrirs have not seen Served... The main purpose of consolidation is to save costs und time, and therefore it will net wsvally be ordered unless there is “some common question of law or fact. bearing sufficient importance in proportion to the rest of the subject-matter of the actions ° to render it desirable that the whole should be disposed of at the same time”... Where this ts the case, actions ‘May be consolidated where the plaintiffs are the same and the defendants are the Sane, or, where the

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