Tanios Gebran Chaghoury v Jamal k. Wansa (CIVAPP 57/24) [2025] SLCA 1 (11 February 2025)

CIVAPP 57/24 No. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SIERRALEONE BETWEEN: TANIOS GEBRAN CHAGHOURY- APPELLANT. 17 OLD RAILWAY LINE ‘THE MAIZE WILBERFORCE FREETOWN AND JAMAL KAMEL WANSA - RESPONDENT (SUING BY HIS ATTORNEY MUSTAPHA ABOU TARAFF} 30 MALAMA THOMAS STREET.

Coram

HON.MR.JUSTICE K.KAMANDA ~ CHIEF JUSTICE. HON.MR.JUSTICE M.A. STEVENS JA. HON. JUSTICE T. BARNETT JA. COUNSEL : J.MJENGO ESQ. ‘APPELLANT P. LAMBERT ESQ. RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 Wah |\-2-2 HON. JUSTICE KOMBA KAMANDA .

1. This is an appeal filed against the judgment of Hon.Justice L.Taylor J. delivered on the 22 day of July 2024. On the following grounds:

a. The whole.

b. The learned presiding judge in the lower court erred in law and in fact in holding that the Appellant had not paid the USD$160,000(One Hundred and Sixty Thousand United States Dollars) to the Respondent when it was very clear by the exhibits before him that the mode prescribed by which the USD$160,000 (One Hundred and Sixty Thousand United States Dollars) ought to have been paid was complied with by the Appellant and the said compliance acknowledged by the Respondent when he issued a receipt to that effect.

c. That the learned presiding judge in the lower court erred in law and in fact in holding that the Appellant herein should pay rents for the years he occupied the subject matter herein after the Sales Agreement had been executed and same fully complied with when by every exhibits before him indicated clearly that the property had been sold to the Appellant by the Respondent.

d. That the learned presiding judge in the lower court erred in law and in fact when he disregarded the supplemental affidavit of the Appellant dated the 31% day of May 2024 in its entirety and all exhibits attached thereto as at the time when the judgment was been written and delivered.

e. That the learned presiding judge in the lower court erred in law and in fact when he failed to give credence to the fact that the Appellant had requested that a visit be done on the property which will help the judge to arrive at an informed conclusion before handing down his judgment.

f. That the learned presiding judge in the lower court erred in law and in fact when he did not consider especially when the entire proceedings was

based on affidavit evidence, the notice of intention to cross examine the Deponent that is the Respondent in a bid to ascertain the authenticity and credibility of the Deponent’s averments contained in the Respondent's affidavits through which his case was presented before the court.

g That the learned presiding judge in the lower court erred in law and in fact when he disregarded completely the fact that the banker's cheque through which the Appellant paid part of the consideration of USD$.160,000 {One Hundred and Sixty Thousand United States Dollars} for the res of this Appeal, was one that was specifically requested for by the Respondent in a sale agreement which the Respondent prepared dated 7 day of February 2023 and concluded that same ought to have been paid by another means.

h. That the learned presiding judge in the lower court erred in law and in fact when he ordered that only USD$300,000 {Three Hundred Thousand United States Dollars} were to be paid to the Appellant with 10% interest by the Respondent and failed to consider the amount of monies that the Appellant had expended in structurally modifying the property as stated clearly in the supplemental affidavits with supporting evidence that was before him and also failed to consider that damages ought to have been paid to the Appellant when same was clearly pleaded for in the supplemental affidavit in opposition of the Appellant dated the 31% day of May 2024.

i, That the learned presiding judge in the lower court erred in law and in fact when he did not consider all through his judgment to make an order directed to the Respondent herein to refund the USD$160,000 which the Respondent had caused the Appellant herein to part with to the Bank in Lebanon which issued the banker's cheque to the person to whom the Respondent had directed the Appellant to issue it to.

2. That the judgment is against the weight of the evidence.

3. RELIEF SOUGHT FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL. ‘a. That the Appellant's appeal be upheld.

b. That the judgment of the High Court dated 22" day of July 2024 be set aside.

c. That judgment be entered for the Appellant.

4, Apart from opposing the appeal, the Respondent on the other hand filed a notice on the 24" October 2024 seeking variation of the judgment of the High Court dated the 22 July 2024, on the basis;

1, That the learned Trial Judge erred in law and in fact when he ordered that the Respondent pay interest to the Appellant on the sum to be refunded by the Respondent to the Appellant, in that

i. The Appellant did not have any claim at all before the High Court on which the Learned Judge could have ordered that interest be paid on the sum to be refunded by the Respondent to the Appellant and

ii, That the Appellant did not have any claim before the court below for any debt or damages which would have cloaked the court with discretionary jurisdiction under section 4(1) of the Law Reform (miscellaneous provisions} Act Cap 19 of the Law of Sierra Leone 1960 to award any interest at all on the sum to be refunded by the Respondent to the Appellant.

iii, That the learned Judge erred in Law in that no evidence as to the rate of interest payable on the United States Dollars was led before him and there was no such evidence before the court on which the learned Judge could have based his decision to award interest of 10% on the sums to be refunded by the Respondent to the Appellant.

iv, That the learned Judge erred in law when he ordered that ‘no order as to costs he having found that —

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