Automated Summary
Key Facts
The applicants sought to restore an appeal struck out for non-compliance with Rule 35(2) of the Supreme Court Rules. They applied under section 126(b) of the Sierra Leone Constitution and Rule 103, arguing the court failed to consider a prior stay of execution and that the appeal was being prosecuted. The court dismissed the application, finding no evidence of appearance before the three justices when the appeal was struck out and that new arguments were not presented at that time. Costs were assessed at Le 500,000 to the respondent.
Issues
- Whether there was abundant evidence before the court indicating that the appellants were actively prosecuting their appeal, as claimed by the applicants.
- Whether the court and the respondent waived compliance with Rule 35 of the Supreme Court Rules, allowing the appeal to proceed despite non-compliance.
- The court's failure to consider an application for a stay of execution before striking out the appeal, despite the applicants claiming it was argued before the full court and granted.
Holdings
The application was dismissed with costs assessed at Le 500,000 to the respondent. The court held that the applicants failed to appear before the three Justices when the appeal was struck out for non-compliance with Rule 35(2), and their subsequent arguments were not valid as they were not presented during the initial hearing. The ruling emphasized strict adherence to court rules and the necessity of appearing at the relevant hearing to invoke the provisions of section 126(b) of the Constitution.
Remedies
The application is dismissed with costs assessed at Le 500,000 to the respondent.
Legal Principles
The court emphasized strict adherence to procedural rules (Rule 35(2)) and clarified that Section 126(b) of the Constitution allows challenging orders from a three-Justice court in the full court only if there was an appearance and argument before the initial ruling. Rule 103 permits waiving non-compliance with court rules if not wilful and in the interest of justice, but this discretion is exercised only when proper procedural steps are followed.
Precedent Name
- Castrol Ltd. v. John Michael
- Mohamed Juma Jalloh v. T Krishnakumar
Cited Statute
- Rules of the Supreme Court, Public Notice No.1 of 1982
- Constitution of Sierra Leone, Act No.6 of 1991
Judge Name
- S.C. Warne
- A.B. Timbo
- V.A.D. Wright
- H.M. Joko Smart
- D.E.F. Luke
Passage Text
- Section 126(b) of the Constitution provides for an application to be made to the full court... if the non-compliance is not wilful and it is in the interest of justice that the non-compliance is waived.
- The Rules must be strictly observed. It is only in a situation where an applicant appears or he is represented by counsel at the hearing for striking out the appeal and reasons are adduced to the satisfaction of the court that the appeal should stand despite non-compliance with the Rules.
- In the instant case, the grounds on which the applicants are relying presuppose that there was an appearance by them before the three justices and there was an argument of the application. This was not the case. The argument now put forward is new as was in the Mohamed Juma Jalloh case.