MISC. APP.355/2006        2006  A NO 12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SIERRA LEONE CIVIL JURISDICTION

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITIONFOR WINDING UPOF ARCADIA MINING COMPANY LIMITED

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES ACT CHAPTER 249OF THE LAWS OF SIERRA LEONE 1960

BETWEEN HAROLD G SLONE             -          PETITIONER / REPONDENT

AND

ARCADIA MINING CO LTD                  - 1st REPONDENT/ APPLICANT

MOHAMED SERRY                                - 2NDRESPONDENT / APPLICANT

OSMAN KABBA                                     - 3RDRESPONDENT / APPLICANT

LANSANA FADIKA                               - 4THRESPONDENT / APPLICANT

AND THEORDORE BURDEN                - 5th RESPONDENT /APPLICANT

JANE NEWTON                                      - 6th RESPONDENT /APPLICANT

J B JENKINS JOHNSTON ESQ FOR THE PETITIONER

ROWLAND WRIGHT ESQ FOR THE RESPONDENTS

RULING DELIVERED THIS 8th DAY OF MARCH 2007

Having granted the application, I wish to consider whether in the circumstances of this case it is prudent or justified to ask for security for costs . On this note I would think that The Applicants/ respondents have clearly advanced cogent reason why security for costs ought to be given in that the petitioner / respondent is ordinarily and permanently resident abroad. But need I point out that application for security for cost is subject to the discretion of the Court and the rule is purposefully vague and elastic . Residence abroad is just a general rule subject to exceptions

In the case of the KEVORKIAN VS BURNEY 2 (1937) 4 ALL ER 268, COURT OF

1.

APPEAL DECISION , the court had already made an order that the statue, which was deposited within the jurisdiction, should not be removed without the consent of the defendants or an order of the court, and the defendants requested security for cost it was held in the event of the plaintiff being unsuccessful in the action, the value of the statue must be more than any order for costs that could be made against the plaintiff resident abroad in consequence of which there ought to be no order for security for costs.

I should think that this court has made an order for the recovery and interim preservation of the assets of the company which to all intents and purposes could be likened in terms of effect to an order that the statue, which was deposited within the jurisdiction, should not be removed without the consent of the defendants or an order of the court," In the circumstances , and taking the peculiar nature of the proposed action which is winding up of the company if the petitioner were to lose I would say the assets of the company to which he is a major share holder should provide sufficient security for costs. I thus exercise my discretion in refusing the application for security for costs. The application thus fails. No order as to costs

Hon. Mr. Justice D.B. Edwards J.

2.