Zubairu Kamara v Saidu Sesay (CIV APP 6 of 2019) [2021] SLCA 17 (4 May 2021)

Key Facts

Issues

• Whether the Court of Appeal is amenable to granting the Appellant/Applicant leave to amend the grounds in the Notice of Appeal dated 31st January 2019, including new arguments about being the fee simple owner of a different property.
• Whether the Appellant/Applicant has shown special circumstances to warrant the granting of a stay of execution of the judgment dated 24th January 2019 and ruling dated 15th February 2019 regarding the recovery of possession of land at Peninsula Road, Goderich.

Holdings

• The Court granted leave to amend the grounds in the Notice of Appeal. This discretion was exercised despite the Appellant's application for a stay being denied, as the Respondent did not oppose the amendment request. The court referenced Rule 9(5) of the CAR 1985, which allows amendments upon terms the court deems just, and ordered the amended Notice of Appeal to be filed by 18 May 2021.
• The Court of Appeal refused the application for a stay of execution, holding that the Appellant/Applicant failed to establish special circumstances warranting such relief. The court emphasized that in non-monetary judgments for possession of land, a strong case must be shown to deprive the respondent of the judgment's benefits, citing cases like Boblyn Augustine v. Abdul Koroma and Ivan Davies v. Olabisi Barber. The Appellant's affidavits, which highlighted his age, emotional attachment to the property, and the impracticability of finding alternative accommodation, were deemed insufficient under established precedents.

Remedies

• The Court refused the application for a stay of execution, determining that the Appellant/Applicant did not demonstrate special circumstances warranting such relief.
• Leave is granted to the Appellant/Applicant to amend the grounds of appeal, requiring the amended Notice to be filed by 18 May 2021.
• The Respondent is restrained from selling or otherwise disposing of the specified land until the appeal is determined, following the Court's refusal to grant a stay of execution.
• The Court provided directions for the appeal's conduct, including deadlines for written synopses by both parties and an oral hearing scheduled for 13 July 2021.
• The costs associated with this application are ordered to be costs in the cause, as determined by the Court.

Legal Principles

• The Court of Appeal applied the principle that in non-monetary judgments for recovery of land possession, a stay of execution is only granted if the applicant shows a strong case for depriving the respondent of the judgment's benefit, considering the non-perishable nature of land and the need for a compelling reason.
• The Court exercised its discretion under Rule 9(5) of the Court of Appeal Rules 1985 to grant leave for amending the grounds of appeal, noting that the respondent did not oppose the amendment and the court's discretion to allow amendments upon just terms.

Precedent Name

• Radar Vs Jaber
• Evelyn Ayo Pratt Administratix of the Estate of Betsy Rogers Parkinson (Deceased) Intestate Vs Jacqueline Carew and Others
• Boblyn Augustine Vs Abdul Koroma
• Patrick Koroma Vs Sierra Leone Housing Corporation and Dolcis Beckley
• Africana Tokeh Village Limited Vs John Obey Development Investment Co. Ltd
• Mrs Lucy Decker and Others Vs Goldstone Decker
• Ivan Davies & Others Vs Ms Olabisi Barber

Cited Statute

Judge Name

• Sulaiman A Bah
• John Bosco Allieu
• Reginald S Fynn

Passage Text

• Considering the above quoted paragraphs of the said Affidavit... this Court is of the view that there is no evidence of a strong case being established '... for depriving the respondent of the fruit of the judgment obtained in his favour'; consequently, no special circumstances have been shown.
• The application for a stay of execution is refused;... Leave is hereby granted to the Appellant/Applicant to amend the grounds of appeal in the Notice of Appeal dated the 31st January,2019 and file the amended Notice of Appeal no later than the 18th May 2021;
• "[I]n a non-monetary judgment, as that of a judgment for delivery of possession, of a land, the 'special circumstances' that the applicant for a stay has to establish are those factors which make out a strong case for depriving the respondent of the benefit of the judgment obtained in his favour. A further consideration which the court will take into account in an application for a stay especially in cases concerning land, is that of the non-perishable nature of the property... unless the applicant can establish a strong case for depriving the respondent of the fruit of the judgment obtained in his favour."