A Motion Paper allegedly taken out by EM.Turay but signed  by  AF.Serry Kamal  for  E   M.  Turay  as  Solicitor  for  the  Applicant  dated  the  20th  day  of  October I 999 and  filed  in  the  Registry  of the Supreme  Court  on  an  application  made  pusuant to section I 26(b) of the Constitution of  Sierra  Leone,  Act  No.6  Of  199 I  (hereafter called the Constitution) and Rule  I 03  of  the  Rules  of  the  Supreme  Court,  Public Notice No. I of !982(hcreafter called the Rules) ,eeks  an  order  from  this  Honourable Coun that the order made by this Cou11 dated  the  22"J  day  of  September  l 999  be varied, discharged or reversed and that the appeal be restored.

The grounds on which the application is made are:

1. That the Court failed to consider that an  application  for a stay of' execution had been argued by the appellants and respondent before the  full  cou11 and the court had granted a stay of execution ot' the judgment of the Colllt of Appeal

,., That in the light of the  above  proceedings  there  was  abundant  evidence before the coun ro show that the appeal was being prosecuted by  the appellants.

3. That there was evidence before the court that  both  the  court  and  the respondent had waived compliance with  Rule  35  of  the  Supreme  Court Rule

The Motion is supported by the  attidavit  of  A  F Serry  Kamal  dated  the  20th  day  of October I 999 and it contains seven c.xhibits numbered A to G.

On the 4'.h day of November 1.999, at the hearing of the application Counsel sought to amend the Motion Paper by the substitution of grounds in place of the grounds in the original Notice of Motion.and  to use  two  affidavits  in addition  to  the original  affidavit in support of the Motion. The application for amendment was refused .

All the papers filed in the application appear to have  been  engrossed  and  signed  by  Serry Kamal describing himself in paragraph one of his affidavit as Solicitor  for  the second and third applicants but generally signing for  EM.Turay  in  the  body  of  the Notice of Motion and the backing of all the papers

Before I go into the merit of the application, I tind it necessary to address what  has  become· the unorthodox practice of  some  solicitors,  possibly  as  a  matter  of convenience, to sign notices of  motion,  summonses.  pleadings  and  other  court documents "for" other solicitors When one solicitor acts as such for another, whose document is it? Is the signatory acting as agent for the other? If so,  does  he  or  his principal have the  authority  of  the  clie nt'1  A  solicitor/client  relationship  is  personal and sometimes it may have adverse effect on the solicitor, for example, liability for

neg-l1.u. ence  and  breach  of  trust,  a  thin.g...   which  one  solicitor  cannot  transfer  to  another.

Besides. the solicitor/agent signing for anothe, will  be  acting  without  the  authority  of the  client  and  in  addition  to  his  being  liable  to  the  client  as  an  intermeddler  he may

·. also find himself liable to a third party for breach of implied warranty of authority. ;\ solicitor -;n a firm can sign for the other solicitors in his firm since· it is an incidence of partnership   that  he is           both principal and agent for the others. The current practice whereby one solicitor signs for another when they are not in partnership which I have highlighted is not supported by law  There  are  cc,tain  situations  as  in  the  case  of appeals in which the Rules of court  permit  a  solicitor  to  sign  on  behalf  of  his  client But a  rule  which  allows  one solicitor  to  act  as  an  agent  for  another  when  they  are not in partnership to enable him to act on behalf  of  the  other's  client  still  has  IO  be drawn to my attention I opine that  in  ,ir,kr  tu  avoid  any  noxious  consequences,  the Rules of the High Court ,,hich are applic,,bk in thi_, case by virtue of Ruic 98 of the Supreme Court I9S2 provide fr,r change  of  solicitor  whereby  the  client  gives  his written r,onsent to the appointment of a new solicitor in substitution for the old thus severing the personal relationship with him and establishing a new one with  the present.This practice should be followed rather than the current one.

!-laving said that, l will proceed to the heart of the application. Mr.  Serry  Kamal vigorously  argued  the  original  applicationunderlining  the  fact  that  there  was  a reserved judgment of the Court on an apµlication for  a  stay  of  execution  when  the appeal was struck out  for  non-cornpiiancc with  Rule :15(2).  This  was the central  plank of his comµlaint and he inf, rs ,hat boch the courr sitting with three Justices and the respondent were aware of it at  the  time  th,it  the  appeal  was  struck  out.  This  is  a serious indictment of the Coun  which  Counsel  could  not  substantiate since ncithe1· he nor a me.mber of his firm nor his clients appeared. The papers in•which th,:: applicants endevourcd to comply· with Rule 35(2) were tiled  after  the appeal  had  been struck  out tor non-compliance with the Rule It was like shu1ting the  stable  after  the  horse  had bolted

).

,

•

This application is in my view on all fours with that made before this Cour1 in Mohamed Juma Jalloh vT Krishnakumar, unrepor1ed, Sc. Misc. App. 2/99 ruling delivered on the 26th day of October 1999.except that the grounds in suppor1 were different. In that case, there was no appeara!lce by the applicant when the appeal was struck out for non-compliahce with Rule J5 and he later applied to the full Court invoking sectioll 126(b) of the Co!lslilulicin and Rule 103 leading fresh evidence in suppon oft he restoration or the appeal.

Section 126(b) of the Constitution provides for an application to be  made  to  the  full coU11 consisting of five Justices when  an applicant  is  not satisfied  with an  order  made by the ccurt comprising three Justices and Ruic I 01  gives a discretion  to  the  Court  to allow an appeal to proceed even though  there  has  been  non-compliance  with  Rules  or any other rule or practice if the non-compliance is not wilful and it is in the interest of  justicq that the non-compliance is waived.

In the Mohamed Juma Jillloh case hereinbcfore r ferred to Warne JSC delivering the unanimous ruling of the Court had this to say:

"There is no evidence before this Court to sl1ow that when the matter Cilrne up before the cow1 made up of three Justices that Ruic 35( I) &

(2) of the Rules had been complied with: consequently the cour1 struck out Ille appeal"

On the interpretation of section l26(b) of the Constitution, Warne JSC fur1her said: "In my vi w this sub-sectic)n presupposes that the three Justices erred

in 1,m 0, 01.!1cr ..,,i:;,, ru ,,,1:iulc the applicant to invoke tl1e provision of

section 12(i(bJ cif'rhe Constitution. On the record of proceedings as it stands before the court ot' three Justices, there was no submission or argume1t1 before the court of three Justices before the cour1 struck out the appeal."

.

In the instant case, rhe grounds on wliicl1  the  applicants  are  relying  presuppose  that there was an  appear,1nce  by  them  before  the  rhrec justices and  there was  an  argument of the application. 'fhis  was  not  the  case.  The argument now  put  forward  is  new  as was in the Mohamed Juma Allocyclic Such  argurnent  could  have  been  relevant  when the application ca111e up before tile th,ee Justices bur by then the applicants and their Solicitor had not sh,1w11 up. Till' R11les l!lust be strictly observed.  It  is  only  in  a sedation where an app/icanl aµpe,us or he is represented by counsel al rhe hearing for striking out the appeal and reasons ,,re adduced W the satisfaction of the cour1 that the appeal should  stand despite  non-compliance with tl1e Rules as WilS the  case in Castro!  L-td. v fohn Michael, SC !/98. unprepared," ruli11:; ,ifrliis cuurt dated the 3ll' dayof Sepren1ber 1999, that the co11n lll:glit  be persuaded  lo exercise  its discretion  and  save tile appeal. 

, In  the    light of what I have said, the application

-    assessed at Le 500,000 to rhe respondent herein