CR APP. No.5/2002.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR STERRA LEONE

BETWEEN: PAULKAMARA—---                            -APELLANT/APPLICANT

AND MAITLAND E. TOLLAH THOMPSON --       -RESPOTDENT

CORAM:HON.Mr. JUSTICE A. N.BANKOLE STRONGE              J.A.

PRESIDING HON. JUSTICE PATRICIA MACAULAY                   J A.

 HON. Mr. JUSTICE A. ADEMUSU                                                  J.

GIBSON OKEKE,ESQ. FOR APPLICANT.

N D. TEJAN-COLE,ESQ. With him A.S. SESAY,ESQ.and GLENA

THOMPSON.Ms,

RULINNG DELIVERED BY A.N.BANKOLE STRONGE J.A. THIS 10TH DAY OF 2002.

In his Notice of motion dated the 2nd. day of December 2002,the Applicant proposed to apply to this Court for the following orders:-(a) That this application be heard notwithstanding short service of this Motion. (b)That bail be granted to the Appellant/Applicant pending the hearing and determination or the Appeal.

At the commencement of the hearing, Mr.N.D.Tejan-Cole raised certain preliminary issues. He submitted that the Notice of Motion is not properly before the Court and should not be heard. He canvassed seve(7) preliminary objections. Of the greatest weight amongst these is: -

That the application for BAIL presupposes that there is an APPEAL before the COURT.

He submitted that Section 57 of the COURTS ACT 1965 Public Notice No 31 of l965, makes a clear distinction between AN APPEAL against conviction and an APPEAL against sentence. He pointed out that by RULES 40 and 45 of the RULES the proper FORMS for an APPEAL against conviction and that for an APPEAL against sentence respectively are those set out as FORM 2 and FORM3 respectively in Appendix C of the RULES. Exhibit PK2 which purports to be a NOTICE OF APPEAL is in contravention of RULES 40 and 45 of the RULES.There is therefore no evidence of an APPEAL before this COURT as is required by Sections57 of the COURTS ACT,supra, and by RULES 40 and 45 of the RULES.

On this ground alone what purports to be a NOTICE OF APPEAL dated 2nd. December 2002,is not properly before this COURT,I must point out that that document is replete with irregularities and errors.

Mr. OKEKE made no serious attempt to answer to the objections raised. He perhaps could not.

This COURT therefore Orders that what purports to be a NOTICE OF APPEAL dated the 2nd December,2002 be struck out and it is so struck out

Costs awarded to the Respondent assessed at Le 300,000,00(Three hundred thousand Leones)

PATRICIA MACAULAY J.A A. ADEMUSU J.