Precious Minerals Marketing Co (SL) v. Companies Act Cap. 249 (Misc. App. No,6/2000)  SLCA 5 (28 March 2000);
Misc. App. No,6/2000
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR SIERRA LEONE
PRECIOUS MINERALS MARKETING CO.(SL) - APPELLANT
AND COMPANIES ACT CAP. 249 - RESPONDEN
Hon. Mr. Justice N.D. Alhadi - J,A.
Hon. Mr. Justice M.S. Tolla-Thompson - J.A.
Hon. Mr. Justice F.C. Grbow - J.A.
D.S. Vincent Esq., for the Petitioner/Applicant
F.M.Carew Esq./ for the Respondent
RULING DELIVERED THIS 28th DAY OF MARCH, 2000
When the matter came up for Hearing learned Counsel P.M. Carew Esq., raised certain preliminary objections, as specified in the Notice of Intention to Rely on Preliminary Objection dated 17/3/2000 and filed. The main contention raised by the Counsel for the Respondent is that the Ruling of this Court in the matter Civ. App. 1/99 delivered on the 8/3/2000 amounts to a res judicata on my subsequent matter touching and concerning any application for leave to file an appeal out of time. Counsel for the Petition-Applicant has argued otherwise and forcefully argued that the Ruling of this Court on the 8/3/2000 cannot amount to a res judica.
We have considered the arguements on both sides, and we hold that for the plea of res judicata to be successfully upheld the decision relied upon as the basis for the plea must be conclusive of the issues in the cause of action between the same parties before a court of competent jurisdiction.
The decision of this court in Civ. App. 1/99 was that the Notice of Appeal having been filed out of time as provided by the
by the Rule 11(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules 1905 without any order for enlargement of time having been obtained the appellant could not be entertained; and it was accordingly struck out.
The Application presently before this court is for an order granting the Petitioner/Applicant an enlargement of time within which an appeal can be brought to this Court. There was no application for enlargement of time considered and adjudicate upon by this court in the matter of Civ. App. 1/99 mentions were indeed made because it was raised in the Notice of Intention to Rely on Preliminary Objection filed in t