AMINATA CONTEH V ALL PEOPLE’S CONGRESS PARTY SC CIV 4/2004
The wanted recovery of premises during the long vacation. An appearance was entered by the applicant but no defence filed the then applied and the High Court granted it. The applicant appealed to the C.A stating that the High Court was wrong in law in granting summary judgment on the grounds that the had a good defence and there were . The C.A disagreed, the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court on the grounds that the C.A tried the case on its merits and not whether it was a good case for leave to grant a summary judgment.
Wright J.S.C in a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court set aside the judgment because; (1) it should not be given during the long vacation unless both parties consented; and (2) The C.A should not have gone into the substantive matter and not have upheld the judgment since there were triable issues.
DARAMY v NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION CC 142/2008 reported in
P instituted an action for termination of employment and full payment of salaries, was entered by P. D applied to set aside judgment in default of defence and leave to file a defence and counter claim. D claimed that due to some "mix up" caused two appearances to be entered on their behalf.
Justice E. E. Roberts held that the primary is whether D has shown a good defence on the merits and there are serious issues, the have raised an arguable case carrying some degree of . E. E. Roberts J set aside the judgment but granted cost against the D.
JOSEPH MANNEH V JURPUR MUNAH CC. 40 2013
The questions before the court where whether or not the respondent was the legitimate next of kin of a deceased intestate and whether he was entitled to be granted of that estate inter alia. The applicant contented that this case was one that can be “disposed on point of law”.
A. Showers held that Order 17 (disposal on point of law) applies to questions posed must be suitable for determination of the action without a full trial. From the questions posed, there is no doubt that evidentiary hearings have to be conducted and the questions need factual answers as well as legal ones. The court refused the application and further ordered that this case cannot be disposed on point of law and held an earlier order to the contrary was made per incuriam and is hereby set aside.
BECKLEY V CHAMBERS CIV. APP 61/2012
The A sought an inter alia against R from going onto a piece of land and from selling such land so as to avoid third party rights accruing pending the final determination of the appeal herein. A claimed that he owned the land and that R had trespassed on his property .R did not dispute constructing on the said land but said that A did not even know where her land was located.
Hon. Justice A Showers JA in a unanimous decision of the CA on the application in using the guidelines set out by lord Diplock in American Cynamid case held that if the injunction was granted it would create grave hardship on R. Injunction was refused.
GENERAL LEGAL COUNCIL V CLAS LEGAL MISC APP 242/2011
The applicant sought an injunction restraining the defendants from representing themselves as being able to offer legal services in Sierra Leone. The respondent contended they were not representing themselves as practicing law but overseeing work by legal consultants on behalf of their client.
A SHOWERS J.A held that the had satisfactorily established its case and the advertisement and representing themselves as being capable of offering legal services in Sierra Leone when they were not breach the legal practitioners Act 200. Thus the order for an injunction was granted prohibited the 3rd defendant from practicing law in Sierra Leone and a mandatory injunction ordering them to remove “legal “ form their name.
LEWIS AND PEAT (PRODUCE LTD) V PELLIZZARI MISC. APP. 30/2000
The Plaintiff obtained a judgment against the three defendants (garnishees) in England and sought to enforce it in Sierra Leone by filing an originating + an and then proceeded to execute a of fifa which the (3rd) defendant sought a in the Court of Appeal and the Court unanimously agreed to the decision of M.E.T Thompson J.A that the original judgment was not final and granted the stay that the motion of the (3rd) defendant be heard in the High Court.
ADRAIN FISHER V GENERAL LEGAL COUNCIL OF SIERRA LEONE MISC.APP.503/2015
The applicant practiced law for 3 years in U.K before being appointed a Magistrate in Sierra Leone but resigned pending a case against him which was quashed in the Court of Appeal. He applied for an exemption to practice law but was rejected on the grounds that the U.K does not have reciprocity for Sierra Leonean Lawyers. The applicant contended that the defendant was not properly constituted as one member was no longer qualified (had appointed to the bench, thus not qualified to be on the council) but was part of the decision and there was no record on the vote for him to be exempted.
A. Showers J.S.C stated that “the function of the Court here is to examine the decision making process to ensure that the applicant had been given fair hearing” and not to serve as an appeals court but to ensure that the council followed its own procedure. The court held that this was a proper case for and ordered inter alia that council to reconsider the application of the applicant.
ALL PEOPLES CONGRESS AND OTHERS V SPEAKER OF PARLIAMENT AND OTHERS CIV.APP NO.13/2000 The applicants were members of parliament and were expelled for absenteeism, they sought leave (under the 1960 rules) to apply for judicial review but were refused and applied to the court of appeal for leave to be granted. They contended that the ad hoc committee; (1) was not properly constituted (2) breached the principles of as they were deprived of a fair hearing. (3) had no power to investigate the matter; and (4) they acted in breach of the lome peace accord (international treaty)
The High Court held that it lacked to review parliament’s decision as it was not an inferior court or tribunal to the High Court. Hon. Bankole Stronge JA in setting aside the order of the High Court held that parliament was an adjudicating authority for the purpose of deciding whether its members could be expelled, thus was subject to the High Court. He granted the Order for and quasi the decision of the speaker of parliament t until the determination of the matter in the High Court.