This  is    an application by R. Awoonor-Renner Esq.,  counsel for          Appellant/Applicant for sta.y of execution of  the  order contained  in     the Ruling of;.the Honourable Thompson-Davis J .s.c. delivered in the Court of Appeal of qierra Leone on the ·4th

day of  March,  1993 and fo    'all subsequent proceedings  to  be stayed  until  the .determination  of Appeal  in the                 Court of ·Ap:peal. The i;l.pplication is                                                                 supported by the                                              Affidavit of A.madu Ka.nu Applicant  herein,     sworn at Freetown on 10th day of March, 1993 and filed.

At the threshold of this application prelimino.ry objection

;;as taken  by  Dr.  H.I .  Joko-Smart  counsel  for  · Respondent:.  on· the          ground   of   non-compliance   by connsel  for          Applico.nt of the mandatory  provisions  of RulJ.e  60    of                                                                  the          Rules of the Supreme Court, 1982 (P.N. No. 1 of 1982).

Rule 60 (1)   states:-

 

....../2.

 

 

 

"A  civil  appeal  shall  not operate  as- :.;  fY of                                               execution or  of  proceedings  under  the                                                              jude;ment qr                                                  decision appealed   against  except  in                                                               so  far                                                              as the Supreme Court

.or the   Court of Appeal may otherwise order".

 

Rule 60· (2)' states:-

"Subject  to  the provisions                                                                    of these lules and to ;1'

any    other enactment  governing  the .s ·une,       an      application  for stay  of  executton  or  proceedincs  shall  first  bemade to       the     Court of  Appeal and if    that : ourt refuses to grant the application the Applicant shalJ be entitled to renew

the    application  before  the  Supreme  C:ourt  for          determination.'

 

Eas counsel for Applicruit complied with tL-::  mandatory provisions  of  the   afore-mentioned  Rules in  the                                                                                     instant l-Plication'I'                                                                    If the

:.c'.,swer  is    in    the    negative can the Supreme Cou ·t entertsin this

.'.'.!! ;._    1'c;Jplication  without   causing   violence   to   the '  :les?             Has the Coc:rt

·D.:·,y  discretion  in  the matter if                                                                              it takes the .·iew that the mandatory 1,rovisions have not been complied with?

Counsel for    Applicant with. candour concc-ied the                               point that

resort  wasnot hadto  theSupreme   Court  Rules :.:1 the                                                                                 instant

•

c,J;plication,  but  nevertheless, ·based  his                                                                   app:.·.cation on the                                                                             grounds

of   concurrent    jurisdiction of both the Supre: . Court· and the Court

o:: Appeal in   this  regard.       .A.fortiori,                                  that  as                  ime was ·,of                                                              the                                  essence hce   i:;roc eeded  under  the  provisions  of  the  Con:.·': i tut  ion                            of                               Sierra

Lc:or.e   1991 Act.  No. 6  of  1991 namely,  Sectio:                                                                                           23 which overricles the

I-'1lcs.        What does the Section say?

 

 

;

.•

'-   i
 

Section 123 (1) (a)    states:-

1. An appeal  shall  lie     from a judgment,                                                            .cecree or order  of  the  Court  of   Appeal  to  the                 . :preme Court
   1. as  of  right  in  any civil cause c matter.

Section 123 (2) -

"Notwithstanding   the   provisions   of c.   bsection                                                                                         (1)

the·Supreme  Court   shall have  power      '-' entertain

 

any application for  special  leave  ', any cause or matter civil or crimi, Supreme C:ourt, and to grant such l.
 

appeal in

. ,  to  the    •

:e    uccordingly".

 

 

 

 
 

 

The purported  application  before   this   Court   is   for stay of.·  execution  of  the  order  conts.inod  in  the  "'uling  of .. the          Honourable Thompson-Davis delivered in the  Court  of Appeal  of  Sierra  Leone on the                             4th          :io.y of          March, 1993.

It .is    not   an appeal or an application  for  speciaJ.  leave to appeal.              I cannot therefore see how this provis n  of. the Constitution  can avail counsel              .n this application.

Rule 60 is    of obvious advaY1t2[e               to                                   an applicant:·in stay   of execution  proceedings.             The  rationale behind  it                                      is to  give   an  applicant  two chances,                             one in                                                                            the Court be,low,

the   Appeal.Court    in this insta..Y1ce     1d          another in the .supreme Court, should the Court of Appeal refuse  to  grant  the Application   sought.      Applicant will therefore have the advantage of                a  second  bite  rather  than                                         jumping his. gun

to his detriment or risko

The order of the Court of ,Appe:;,l was  given  on  4th March to                       take effect on the 15th March, 1993  eleve!l  days from the                       date   of   the said  order.                            Counsel  for                       Ap licant depressed   that   since  time was  of                       tho                       essence compliance with  Rule  60  of  the  Supreme  Court  Tiules  would not ho.ve

been   to   his.  ad  antage, as  execution                                                would ha.ve been effected, thereby making  the                                                proceedings nuc;c,·:ory.                       In                     our view eleven days  was  a  reasonable  time  within   ,.hich   an  applicati'on   for stay  would  have  been made to      the                  Co,;rt  of Appeal in                          the

first   instance.      On refusal a second applic&tion would be made to                    the    Supreme Court.

In an application for stay of execution this Court has  always  taken  the  view that  there :.:;h0t,ld be                                                                                       no s1-,ort cut

to   the   procedure;      the r::wndatory prc".'isions shoi;ld be complied with.        Nothing  has changed the             view of        this Honoi;rable Court

in that regard.

 

 

 

 

 

{ 2h

Now what are   the          consequences  of  failure  to   comply   with the       mandatory provisions of Rule 60 of the Supreme Court Rules?

• In    the. instance case has  the  proper foundation been . laid, a condition precedent for   us to   entertain this purported application

 

The answer is    in   the   negative. is. struck out_.
 

In      the       circumstances   th:,-e   applicati

 

Court

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I      agree

 

I      agree

Costs awarded Le30,ooo.oo.