Sylvia Blyden v The Chief Electoral Commissioner (SC 6 of 2018) [2018] SLSC 1 (18 July 2018)

f BOA. DRY ba Sup Ct case No 6/2018 cA WET. € IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SIERRA LEONE BETWEEN; “ pues Niiaiad DR SYLVIA BLYDEN ~ PETITIONER/RESPONDEN'Y * 7 Seep. sli Prag sis AND my we ter ne OL EEBS 1, THE CHIEF ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER - RESPONDENT*E....» ae 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 6 THOMPSON, JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT COUNSEL: I SOURTE, ESQ for the Petitioner, DR SYLVIA BLYDEN MS BERYL CUMMINGS and D E TAYLOR ESQ for the 1" and 2 Respondents G BANDA-THOMAS ESQ, A SANGARIE ESQ, M MEWA ESQ, S UB SAFFA ESQ and J A KALLON ESQ for the Respondents/ Applicants L DUMBUYA ESQ for Dr S MW KAMARA, Ist Petitioner in Sup Ct Case No 7/2018 and the other 2 Petitioners RULING DELIVERED ue |bay OF JULY, 2018 BROWNE-MARKE, JSC

The Application

1. This is an Interlocutory Application filed on 29" Moy, 2018, brought on behalf of His Excellency Rtd Brigadier Julius Maada Bio, "hereafter, ‘HE The President’, and the Sierra Leone Peoples’ Party, the 3% and 4"" Respondents respectively, in the Election Petition brought by Dr Sylvia Blyden against the

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, are not Applicants in this Application. It is incorrect 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 Samura Kamara, Alhaji Minkailu Mansaray and 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 Moada Bio, and the Sierra Leone Peoples’ Party. In the Petition brought by Dr Samura Kamara and 2 others, the Respondents are. 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 Dr 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 and the SLPP, respectively; and references to the 2% Petitioner are to Or Samura Kamara, the 1* Petitioner in the Petition filed on 9"" April, 2018 and also representing the other two Petitioners in that case.

LETTERS/MEMOS FROM THE PETITIONER

3. Before the Application was first heard last Thursday, the 12" instant, this Court's Registry received two letters/ memos from Dr Blyden, stating that she was away from the jurisdiction. In the first, dated the 9” instant, she said she would instruct Counsel to appear on her behalf if the Court was minded to proceed, and that she had only been served with Notices of

rN Appearances by the 3° and 4" Respondents/ Applicants, but not with the ‘Motion herein. In her second letter, she stated that she had instructed Mr \ __Lansana Dumbuya to appear as Counsel on her behalf, On Monday last, the 16" instant, the Registry received another piece of correspondence from Dr Blyden, bearing the same date. It was addressed to the Master and Registrar of the High Court, and to the Registrar of this Court. In that letter or memo, Dr Blyden first purports to instruct this Court's Registrar,

and the Master and Registrar, to draw this Court's attention toa “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 office 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-3-vis Raudon Street. In her 3" paragraph, she alleges that this Court .....is rejecting’ [sic] for Lansana Dumbuya 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 instructions to ‘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, and directed him to so inform Dr Blyden, As Mr Sourie did appear before us on the 16" instant for Dr Blyden, 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. Mr Banda-Thomas, Counsel for the Applicants, during the course of argument, indicated that this was the purport of the Application, and, not 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 High Court Rules, 2007, hereafter, HCR, 2007, There is no provision in our Rules 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 maintainable in this Courf“the appropriate High jes. Court Rules should be used instead, . 7 ORDER 4 RULE 1 OF THE HIGH COURT RULES, 2007

5. Order 4 Rule 4[1] HCR, 2007 is the appropriate Rule. It states; "Where two or more causes or matters are pending in Court, and on an application to the Court or Judge it appears to the Court or Judge that: [a] some common question of law or fact arises in both or all of them: [b] the rights to relief claimed in the causes or matters are in respect of or, arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions: or, [¢] that for some reason it is desirable to make an order under this sub-rule, the Court or Judge may order those causes or matters to be consolidated on 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 any of them to be stayed until after the determination of any of them.

[2] Where the Court or Judge makes an 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 to be consolidated, then a party to one 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 I have indicated above, the preference of the Applicants is that both actions should be consolidated rather than both being tried at the same time. ORDER 4 RULE 9 WHITE BOOK 1999

6. Rule 4 HCR, 2007 is verbatim et literatim [verb lite] Order 4, Rule 9 of the English Supreme Court Rules, 1999 - White Book, 1999. The HR, 2007 Permit reference to the notes to those rules where they are the same as ours, The relevant notes to those rules are at page 40 of the White Book. They state; “A cause or matter is pending’ for the purpose of this rule as soon as the writ is issued, and therefore the court has jurisdiction to entertain an pplication for the consolidation of two or more causes or matters even though one or more of the writs have not been served... The main purpose of consolidation is to save costs and time, and therefore it will not usually 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 is the case, actions may be consolidated where the plaintiffs are the same and the defendants are the same, or, where the

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