118

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SIERRA LEONE CORAM:

The Hon. Mr. Justice E. Livesey Luke, C.J.

Presiding The Hon. Mr. Justice O.B.R. Tejan                      - J.S.C.

The Hon. Mr. Justice S. Beccles Davies - J.S.C. S.C. MISC. APP. No. 4/82

BETWEEN :

THE BANK OF CREDIT & COMMERCE

INTERNATIONAL                                        - APPELLANTS

AND

THE CHARGE D'AFFAIRS OF THE

IVORY COAST EMBASSY                           - RESPONDENT/APPLICANT

Berthan Macauley, Jr. Esq., for the Respondent/Applicant

Garvas J. Betts, Esq., with him Miss P.S. Wellesley-Cole for the Appellants

Terence M, Terry, Esq., for the Respondent RULING DELIVERED ON THE 29TH DAY OF DECEMBER. 1983 BECCLES DAVIES. J.S.C.:- In this application, the applicant seek to set aside certain orders made by Harding, J.S.C. (sitting as a single Justice of the Supreme Court) on 22nd April, 1982. The orders sought from this Court are -

"That an order be made by the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone constituted by three Justices thereof pursuant to Rule 2(2)(b) and (3) of the Supreme Court Rules Public Notice No. 1 of 1982 discharging OR reversing the Order dated 22nd April, 1982 of the Honourable Mr. Justice C.A. Harding, J.S.C. Presiding Justice sitting as a single Justice of the Supreme Court on the ground of non-compliance with Rule 2(6) of the said Supreme Court Rules Public Notice No. 1 of 1982. and

"That an Order be made by the Supreme Court of Sierra Leone constituted by three Justices thereof pursuant to Rule 2(b) and 2(3) of the

119

Supreme Court Rules 1982 aforementioned discharging or reversing the Order dated the 22nd April, 1982 of the Honourable Mr. Justice Cornelius Harding, J.S.C., Presiding Justice sitting as a single Justice of the Supreme Court on the ground that the said application of the Applicants/ Appellants herein could NOT in law be made ex parte without motion papers and accompanied documents in support of the application on the Respondent and/OR his solicitor herein."

A single Justice of the Supreme Court is empowered to hear matters "not involving the decision of a cause or matter before the Supreme Court." Such power however may be subject to review by a Court of three Justices of the Supreme Court. The pertinent rule on the subject is Rule 2(2)(b). It provides -

2(2) "A single Justice of the Supreme Court may exercise any power vested in the Supreme Court not involving the decision of a cause or matter before the Supreme Court, save that -

(a) ....................

(b) in civil matters, any order, direction or decision made or given in pursuance of the powers conferred by this section may be varied, discharged or reversed by the Supreme Court constituted by three Justices thereof.

The ground on which the application to reverse or discharge the orders of Harding J.S.C. is non-compliance by the Respondents herein, with Rule 2(6) of the Rules of the Supreme Court Public Notice No. 1 of 1982.

The Orders made by Harding J.S.C. on 22nd April, 1982 were -

120

"That the applicants (now respondents) herein are granted an interim stay of all execution and/or proceedings or further proceedings on the Orders of the Court of Appeal (1) dated 15th April, 1982 and (ii) made the 21st day of April, 1982, respectively pending the hearing and determination of the motion dated 22nd April, 1982 filed in the Supreme Court seeking special leave to appeal against the said Orders of the Court and a stay of execution which said motion is to be heard on the 27th day of April, 1982.

(2)  That pending the hearing of the said motion on the 27th day of April, 1982, the applicants deposit with the Registrar of the Supreme Court a Bankers' cheque (Draft) in the sum of Le21,606.10 by noon on Friday 23rd April, 1982, to abide the decision of the Supreme Court,

(3)  This Order to be served on the Respondents by 4 p.m. today 22nd April, 1982." Rule 2(6) relied upon by the Applicants in support of their contention provides -

"The Registrar of the Supreme Court shall give or cause to be given to the parties or their solicitors reasonable notice of the hearing of .............. any application under these rules."

How valid then is the contention that there should have been service of "the necessary motion papers and accompanied documents in support of the application" in accordance with Rule 2(6) quoted above? I do not read Rule 2(6) as requiring the Registrar to serve the motion papers and accompanying documents in respect of the application on the applicants. It requires that notice of the hearing of the application should be given to the parties or their Solicitors. We are all familiar with the form of Notice given by

121

Registrars of the hearing of appeals and applications. There is no validity in the applicants' contention. It is based on a misapprehension of Rule 2(6).

Assuming for a moment that there was validity in the applicant's contention, the orders made by Harding J.S.C. were interim orders which have now been superceeded by permanent orders made by a Court of three Justices of the Supreme Court, that being so the contention had become academic.

The application fails.

(Sgd.) Hon. Mr. Justice S.Beccles Davies,J.S.C.

I agree ........ (Sgd.) Hon. Mr. Justice E. Livesey Luke, C.J.

I agree........ (Sgd.) Hon. Mr. Justice O.B.R. Tejan, J.S.C.