RULING

1. BACKGROUND/ APPLICATION:

A brief background necessitating this present application is vital to its consideration.  The   applicants    herein    (hereinafter   called   "The Accused") were  the  accused  persons  in Magistrates  Courts  No. l  holden at Freetown. The accused pleaded  guilty  and  were  fined Le558,849,400/00 as  per  the  judgment  dated  4th  September,  2009. They filed an application to the Court of Appeal which  was dismissed  by the Court in its ruling of 21st October, 2010. By solicitor's letter of 9th October, 2009 their solicitors  wrote  to  the  then  Hon.  Chief  Justice seeking a summary  review pursuant  to Chapter  17 of the  Laws of   Sierra

Leone 1960.          The review was  denied as  it was  her Ladyship's view that it was not a matter for judicial  review.

1. The accused persons by an Originating Notice of Motion dated 17th November, 2009 applied to High Court for judicial review by way of Certiorari  and  Mandamus.     The orders  sought  were  refused  and  leave to appeal to the Court of  Appeal  was  granted  with  directions  thereto.  The Court of Appeal allowed  the  appeal  and  the  accused  persons  filed for consequent orders which were refused by a ruling  of  21st  October, 2010. Then an  appeal ,vas filed  to  this Court  for the  decision  of  the Court of Appeal be set aside  and  substituted  by one in  their  favour  and for further orders as may be just.  This  Court  granted  the  first  relief sought  and  refused  the  second.
2. The Master & Registrar by letter of the 12th April, 2018 forwarded all requisite documents to the Financial Secretary of the  Ministry  of Finance and Economic Development. Thereafter the accused persons filed a Judges Summons in which the Financial Secretary was the respondent and that the latter was to  pay  the  sum  of  Le558,849,400/00. The respondents therein herein the  applicants objected to the application in the grounds to wit, that the respondent is not a party to the action herein; that the file number used Misc.App.SC 1/2018 is at variance with the original  and  substantive  matter  which was intituled SC. CR. App 1/2010  and lastly  that  the  application  as filed has not complied with the proper procedure laid down for enforcement of judgments  against  the  Government  of  Sierra  Leone. By ruling of 23rd July, 2018 this Court refused the application  and ordered that the correct procedure is that laid down in the State Proceedings Act 2000 (hereinafter called "The Act").
3. By another application to this Court by Judges Summons dated  15th October, 2018; all the orders sought were refused by its ruling of 4th February, 2019.  The  applicants  thereafter  filed  another  Notice  of  Motion dated l 9L"- February, 2019 seeking  5  (five)  orders  from  this Court constituting  of 5  (five) Judges.

1. The present application is filed b\· the respondents/ applicants herein in which they are seeking the following orders to \\·it:-

1.That this Honourable Court grant an order dismissing the notice of motion dated 19rr. Febnwry, 2019  (hereinafter referred to as the notice of motion) filed on behalf of the Applicants/ Respondents for  i1Tegulmities on  the grounds that                           the     Applicants/  Respondents    failed  to   invoke   the original jurisdiction of this Honourable Court in seeking a declaration that Sections 18 (1) (a &  b); Section  18 (2);  and the provisio to Section 21 (3); of Act 1Vo. 14 Of 2000; violate and                             are inconsistent with                   Section         133  (1) of the Constitution of  Sierra  Leone 1991   A.ct No.  6 of 1991).

1. That this Honourable Court do make an Order dismissing the notice of motion on the grounds that the application ought to have been made pursuant to Order 23 Rule 10 of  the High Court Rules, C.I No. 8 of 2007 to cure an accidental slip of omission made in the Ruling of 4:;­ February,  2019.
2. That this Honourable Court do make an Order staying all further or other proceedings in this action pending the hearing and  determination of this application herein.
3. An order for costs against the Applicants/ Respondents.
4. Any other Order that this Honourable Court will deem  fit and just.

Their application is supported by the affidavit of Precious Fewry with several exhibits thereto.                                                        There is no affidavit in opposition.

1. SUBMISSIONS   BY  THE  APPLICANTS:

Counsel Mr. 0. I. Kanu  Esq.  for  the  respondents/applicants  herein relied  on  the                               affidavit  in  support.         Counsel   submitted            that       the application on Notice of Motion dated J grh  February, 2019 is invoking  the original jurisdiction of this Court and that  the format  of  the  said paper  is not proper.  He relied  on  Section  124 of  the Constitution of 1991  (hereinafter   called  "the  Constitution")  and                        submitted   that   by invoking the original jurisdiction of this Court the Motion Paper of [ 9th February, 2019 is not proper in its proper form, a fortiori this Court is deprived of the jurisdiction to entertain the application as the process is not initiated by an Originating Notice of Motion.

1. In relation to the 2"d order to cure the clerical error, counsel referred to Order  23 of  the  High Court  Rules 2007 (hereinafter  called  "The Rules").

He submitted that the application of 19th February, 2019 is filed as Misc/App.SC        1/2019   which   referred   to   another   matter   and  so  the application  is  irregular  and  should   be dismissed.            Counsel referred  to Jrd order on Notion of Motion dated  19th Februan-,  2019 and  submitted that the Ruling of  20t', March,  2018 is  intitulcd  S/C  C.R.  App  1/2010 in   which            5(five)  judges     gave   that                ruling.                   Section          126  of                   the Constitution does not allow the Court to revisit its  decision  when  its  coram   is  5  (five) Justices.        He  concluded   that   Section   126 of  the Constitution  is  not  applicable.

1. Mr. Kanu in reply to Mr Margai submitted that the 2m1 order sought on motion paper of 19th February, 2019 invokes the original jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to Rule 89 of the Supreme Court Rules 1982 (hereinafter called "The Rules") and Section 127 of the Constitution tells of its effects. He submitted that counsel for the respondents cannot complain about a defect  and  then  seeking several orders.  The defect  on the judgement should be corrected first  before the  other orders can be sought  pursuant  to that judgement.
2. SUBMISSIONS  BY THE   RESPONDENTS:

Counsel for the respondents submitted that  the  application  1s misconceived as  his  application  based  on  an  application  to  review ruling of 3  (three) justices  to 5 (five) justices.    He submitted  the matter   is on-going and that the case of Hinga Norman is distinguished from proceedings herein. He submitted that his application is based under Sections 16(3); 127; (7)(5) of the Constitution of 1991 (hereinafter called "The  Constitution").   He submitted  that  the  coram  of  5  (five)  justice can correct a clerical error of 3  (three) justices. That if  the  numbering of  the  case  is  incorrect,  that  is an  administrative  matter.    He concluded that  the  application  is  without merit.

1. FINDINGS:

The  present  application  is  seeking  orders  for  the  dismissal  of  the Motion Paper dated 19th Februari, 2019. M,· consideration  \\·ill  be  limited to the various issues raised on  the  said  motion  though  I  am  bound   to   consider   the   orders   sought   on   the   Motion  Paper   of 19th

February, 2019. I shall only be considering  the orders as  filed and  not  their  merits.     I  shall  commence  my  consideration  of  the  1s, order sought   by  the   respondents/ applicants.        Counsel   has   raised  several

irregularities bordering on  the Act and   the   Constitution.

1. The gravamen of counsel's submission is that the Motion Paper of 19th February, 2019 as  filed  seeks  orders  which  invoke  the  original jurisdiction of this Court  a fortior·i  the  proper  format  should  have  been by Originating Notice of Motion and not b\· Notice of Motion. In brief counsel for  the  respondents  is  seeking  a  declaration  from  this  Court  that Sections 18(1)(2); 21(3) of the Act of 2000 are  inconsistent  with Section 133(1) of the Constitution; that a clerical error  be corrected  by Order 23 Rule  10 of  the  High Court Rules 2007 in that  Section  24(1) of the Act should read Section 21(4) of the Act. Counsel is also invoking Sections 122(2);  l 26(b) and  127( l) of the  Constitution.
2. The question for my consideration is whether the orders sought on  the Motion  Paper  of  19 1h       February,  2019  fall under  the original  jurisdiction of  this  Court.                            I  have   referred   at   great   length   and   detail to  the chronology of events of this matter since its commencement m the Magistrates Court as not to have done so would have left the facts in a vacuum. Counsel for the respondents is invoking  a  declaration  that Sections 18(1) (2); 21(3); of the  Act are  inconsistent \\·ith Section 133(1)  of  the  Constitution.    Does  a  declaration  pursuant  to Section  133(1)  of the  Constitution  invoke  the  original  jurisdiction  of  this  Court?  Mr. Kanu has argued that  it is, hence  he  has  filed  this application.  On the other hand Mr. Margai has  argued  that  the  proceedings  are  a  continuation from the ruling of this  Court  deli\-cred  on  4th  February,  2019 hence the Motion Paper of 1grh February, 2019  is  in  its  proper  format as filed. Permit me to refer to the provisions of  the  Constitution which  are  germane  to my  consideration.
3. There was a ruling of this court  on  4rh  Februarv,  2019  compnsmg  of three (3) justices in which  the  application  of  Mr.  Margai  ,\·as  refused and  no costs  awarded.    He then  filed  this  Motion  Paper  seeking in  the 1"  order  thm   a  panel  of  5   (five)  justices   been  panelled   pursuant   to

Section 126(b) of the Constitution. That  is  his  right  pursuant  to Section 126(b).     But counsel has  gone further to seek Orders 2 and     3

\\·hich Mr. Kanu claims irn·oke this Court's origind jurisdiction.      Rule

89 of the Supreme Court Rules  1982  (hereinafter  called  "The  Rules") provides  that  every  action  invoking  the  original   jurisdiction   of   this  Court  SHALL  be  commenced  hv Originating  Notice  of Motion  in  Form 8

in the First Schedule and it states further the contents  of  the  said application. There are several cases  relating  to  the  construction  of  Section 133 relating to claims against the (government. Section 133(1) reads  thus:

"133 (1) where a person has  a  claim  against  the  Government, that claim may be enforced  as  a  right  by  proceedings taken against the Government  for  that  purpose,  without the grant of or the use of the process known as Petition of Right.

/2)  Parliament   shall,    by    an    Act                     of     Parliament, make prov1swn   for   the    exercise    of                     jurisdiction under     this

section.))

This Court is granted its original jurisdiction in Section 124 of the Constitution  which  reads thus:

"124 /1) The  Supreme  Court  shall  save  as  otherwise  provided m Section 122 of this Constitution,  have  original jurisdiction, to the exclusion of all other courts;

and

/a)  in  all matters  relating  to the  enforcement  or interpretation of  any  provision  of this constitution;

(b)  Where  any  question  arises  whether  an  enactment   was

w

made in excess of the power conferred upon Parliament or any other authority or person by law or under this Constitution".

By seeking a declaration that Sections 18(1) (2); 21(3)  of  the  Act  2000  are  inconsistent  with  Section  133(1)  of  the  Constitution  fall  within the

ambit of Section  124(1) of the  ConsLituLion?   The  ans\\·er  is yes  and the process for irffoking this Court's original jurisdiction is by  an Originating Notice of Motion and not  bv  Motion  Paper.  Several authorities have been furnished to  this  court  in  which  the  facts  are similar to the present proceedings and they were initiated  by  an Originating   Notice of Motion.                                                        To  wit:  S/C   No.  4/96  All  Peoples Congress and  NASMOS & Ministry of Social Welfare Youths and   Sports

\\·hich \\·as a reference to  this  Court  b\· \\·ay  of  a case  s:ated;  and  S/C No. l. 2005 Ngandi T. A. Sokoyama & three others and The Attorney- General  and  Minister  of Justice.     These cases relate  to Section  133  of the Constitution and Petition of Rights Cap 23  of  the  Laws  of  Sierra Leone and Cap 60 of the  Laws of Sierra  Leone which were  brought  to  this Court by Originating Notice Motion.  Provision  is  made  in Section 127 of the Constitution for the enforcement  of  the  Constitution  \\·hich reads  thus:-

"127  (1)  A  person  who  alleges  that  an  enactment   or

anything contained in or done under the authority  of  that  or any other enactment is inconsistent with, or is m contravention of a provision of this Constitution, may  at  any time bring an action in the Supreme Court for a declaration  to that effect.

(2) The Supreme Court shall, for the purpose of  a  declaration under subsection (1), make such  orders  and give such directions as it may consider appropriate  for giving effect to or enabling effect to be given to, the declaration so made."

1. Before I conclude, I \\·ish to address the issue \\·hether a part\· can  seek orders which invoke the original jurisdiction of this  court  \\·ith  other orders  such  as  seeking  to  rectify  a  clerical  error.              The  latter  can  be brought     a    Motion    Paper     but    orders     seeking    construction  of                            any enactment      in   this   case   the   State   Proceedings  Act  2000  as      being inconsistent with  Section  133  of  the  ConsLitution  can  only  be  brought to this  Court  b\· an  Originating  Notice  of  Motion  as  it  is  invoking this

•

Court's original jurisdiction.        The argument  whether  the  CC number

should have read 1/ 18 instead of 1 / 19 is one which in my view is de minimis and can be cured by invoking Order 2 of the High Court Rules 2007 as this Court does not have express provision  for amendments  in its rules.             Rule 98 of the  Rules is  hereby applicable.                       But this Order cannot assist a party who has commenced a matter  by  the  wrong process in this case filing an application by a Motion Paper when the correct process is by an Originating  Notice    of Motion.    It  is not the practice of this Court to dissect the orders sought in an application  and  to grant the application for one order sought  and  refuse  the  other  orders on the grounds they have not been  sought  by  the  correct  process.                         The whole  application  must  fail and  counsel must comply with  the requisite process.                           Rule 89 of the  Rules and  Section 124 of the Constitution are mandatory and ought to be strictly complied with. None compliance with these provisions will render the proceedings a nullity.

1. In the premises therefore, the Notice of  Motion  dated  19th  February,  2019  is dismissed.                         No Order as  to costs.