voytovich Rostislav v Momoh Ansumana (Civ App 02/2024) [2024] SLSC 4 (4 November 2024)

CIV.APP. 2/2022 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SIERRA LEONE BETWEEN: VOYTOVICH ROSTISLAV - Appellants EDUARD MYRONENKO And MOMOH ANSUMANA - Respondents (Suing as Shareholders of Lord Golden Wings (SL) Limited BORIS FARFELL) (Suing as Shareholders of Lora Goden Wings (SL) Limited OLEG TSUKANOV) (Suing as Shareholder of Lora Golden Wings (SL) Limited Through his Attorney Boris Farfell)

Coram

Hon. Justice E. E. Roberts (JSC) — Presiding Hon Justice G. Thompson (JSC) Hon. Justice A. S. Sesay (JSC) Representation: Y. H. Williams, G. Kutubu and D. Black for the Appellants M. P. Fofana for the Respondents

Ruling

Thompson JSC

1. The Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal | dated 21° March 2022. By a Notice of Motion dated 10" January 2024, the Appellants asked the court to make a number of orders totalling 17 including:

i. “an ex-parte injunction for seven days restraining the Respondents, their agents, privies, howsoever otherwise called, especially Magomed Kazulaev from selling, disposing, transferring ownership of machines, equipment and or (sic) all other properties, real and personal, in the name of Lora Golden Wings Ltd;

ii, an ex-parte injunction for seven days restraining the Respondents, their agents, privies, howsoever otherwise called, especially Magomed Kazulaev from moving any of machines, equipment and or (sic), in the name of Lora Golden Wings Ltd from Kerry Town, Waterloo, Freetown pending the hearing and determination of this application;

BE eee eee |

| re a age ee iii. an interlocutory injunction for restraining the Respondents, their agents, privies, | howsoever otherwise called, especially Magomed Kazulaev from selling, disposing, transferring ownership of machines, equipment and or (sic) all other properties, real and personal, in the name of Lora Golden Wings Ltd pending the hearing and determination of this application; iv. an interlocutory injunction restraining the Respondents, their agents, privies, howsoever otherwise called, especially Magomed Kazulaev from selling, disposing, transferring ownership of machines, equipment and or (sic) all other properties, from Kerry Town, Waterloo, Freetown pending the hearing and determination of this application; v. an interim injunction restraining the Respondents, their agents , privies, howsoever

otherwise called, especially Magomed Kazulaev from selling, disposing, transferring

ownership of machines, equipment and or (sic) all other properties, real and personal,

in the name of Lora Golden Wings Ltd pending the hearing and determination of this

application;

vi. an interim injunction restraining the Respondents, their agents , privies, howsoever | otherwise called, especially Magomed Kazulaev from selling, disposing, transferring ownership of machines, equipment and or (sic) all other properties, from Kerry Town, Waterloo, Freetown pending the hearing and determination of this application;

vii. amandatory injunction restraining the Respondents, their agents , privies, howsoever otherwise called, especially Magomed Kazulaev from selling, disposing, transferring

ownership of machines, equipment and or (sic) all other properties, real and personal, in the name of Lora Golden Wings Ltd pending the hearing and determination of this application;

viii. | amandatory injunction restraining the Respondents, their agents, privies, howsoever otherwise called, especially Magomed Kazulaev from selling, disposing, transferring ownership of machines, equipment and or (sic) all other properties, from Kerry Town, Waterloo, Freetown pending the hearing and determination of this application;

As | stated earlier, there are 17 orders being sought on the face of the motion.

2. The matter first came up for hearing on the 10"" January 2024 and Mr Williams for the Appellants informed the court that it was no longer an ex-parte application as they had served the Respondents. Mr Fofanah informed the court that the Notice of Appeal had not been served within the time frame pursuant to Rule 35(1) of the Supreme Court Rules 1982 and that if Mr Williams insisted on going ahead with the

application he would object to it. Mr Williams asked that the court grant Orders 3, 4,7 and 11 of his application, if the court was going to adjourn. The court made the following orders:

i. Leave to the Respondents to file an affidavit in opposition including any preliminary objection to the Applicant’s application herein to be filed and

served no later than Tuesday 23" January 2024

ieee ee F

Eo oooreeres=SX q li, Leave to the Applicant to file a supplementary affidavit sworn to by Salieu Kamara dealing solely with the issue of his capacity and authorisation to swear to affidavits and give evidence in these proceedings iii, All proceedings in all courts that is to say the High Court and Court of Appeal be stayed until the hearing and determination of the Application iv. Aninterlocutory injunction as prayed for in (iii) above

3. On the 21st February 2024, Mr Williams ‘moved’ his motion on behalf of the Appellants. The motion was supported by the affidavit of Salieu Kamara sworn to on the 10" January 2024 with several exhibits attached to it. Mr Williams relied on the entirety of the affidavit. For present purposes, | shall paraphrase as follows: That the Respondents had been selling and dissipating the assets in the name of Lora Golden Wings Ltd. That there were videos featuring machines and equipment loaded in lorries being moved out of Kerry Town, Waterloo, Freetown, where the judge ordered the machines to be stored. That on the 9°" January 2023, solicitors acting on the instructions of the Applicants wrote to the Respondents demanding an | explanation for the movement of the machines and equipment in the name of Lora | Golden Wings Ltd. That solicitors for the Respondents replied by letter dated 9” | January 2023. That on the 6" and 19°" May 2023, the Applicants’ solicitor wrote letters to solicitors for the Respondents but the said letters were similarly treated with | disdain. That despite the said letter (sic) and admonition, the Respondents have not | relented in their desire to deplete the assets in the name of Lora Golden Wings Ltd.

4. Mr Fofanah filed his Notice of Motion on the 5" February 2024, objecting to the Applicant’s Notice of Motion. It was supported by an affidavit sworn to by himself on the same date. This motion and affidavit formed the basis of his preliminary objection to Mr Williams’ own notice of motion referred to above. Mr Fofanah’s objections were as follows: a) That the said Notice of Appeal infringes and violates Rules 33(1) of the Supreme Court Rules 1982 (Public Notice No.1 of 1982) in the sense that it was not done in conformity with the mandatory requirements of the Rule as well as with Form 4 set out in the First Schedule of the said Supreme Court Rules, 1982; b) That the Appellants herein also failed to comply and conform with Rule 35 (1) & (2) of the Supreme Court Rules, 1982 aforesaid in the sense that: i) the said Notice of Appeal was served on the Respondent’s solicitor (on behalf of the Respondents herein) more than three months after it was lodged/filed with the Supreme Court Registry; and ii) that no certificate of service was filed by the Appellants herein as required by the said Rules, even x gee. after the delayed service of the Notice of Appeal;

a

c) That the Appellants are stranger as to the case appealed against from the Court of Appeal in the sense that they filed the current Appeal in the Supreme Court in their personal capacities, as opposed to the fact that they filed their Appeal at the Court of Appeal in their representative capacities as “Director/Shareholder of Lora Golden Wings (SL) Limited” [in the case of Voytovich Rostislav, the 1* Appellants]; and as “Director/Shareholder of

Lora Golden Wings (SL) Limited” [in the case of Eduard Myronenko, the 2° Appellant herein], considering that the matter herein is a corporate matter involving Lora Golden Wings (SL) Limited aforesaid, its shareholders, directors and assets. The current Appeal has therefore changed the title, texture and nature of the matter appealed against. d) That the Notice of Appeal is unmeritorious, frivolous and a waste of the Court’s time in view of the following:

i. That the Notice of Appeal fails to state or outline a) the particulars of error of law and error of fact respectively complained of in Ground One of the said Notice; b) the part of the judgment complained of in the Notice as being against the weight of the evidence in Ground Two; and c) the particulars of the judgment said to have been made per incuriam in Ground Three as required by the mandatory Form

4 in the 1" Schedule of the Supreme Court Rules, 1982;

ii, After filing the said extant Appeal claiming that the assets of the Lora Golden Wings (SL) Ltd. Company in fact belong to the 1" Appellant, Neftegazservices and Lidon Trade, thereby controverting the Judgment of the Court of Appeal of January 2023 to file a winding up Petition to dissolve the said Lora Golden Wings (SL) Limited Company in the High Court of Sierra Leone.

ii, And that since the 21° March 2023 when the said Notice of

Appeal was filed in the Supreme Court Registry, the Appellants have not taken any steps to prosecute the said Appeal, and have treated the Appeal with total abandon.

5. | have taken the trouble to spell out each of the grounds set out in the notice of motion by the Respondent because this Ruling addresses those objections specifically. If we agree with Mr Fofanah, then that will be the end of Mr Williams’ application of the 10" January. | shall now deal with the objections raised by Mr Fofanah.

Ya .

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