COURT: SUPREME COURT OF SIERRA LEONE
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE C.O.E. COLE C.J. (PRESIDING)
THE HONOURABLE S.C.J. BETTS J.S.C.
THE HONOURABLE LIVESEY LUKE J.S.C.
THE HONOURABLE S.J. FOSTER J.S.C.
THE HONOURABLE C.A. HARDING J.A.
SC CIV APP NO. 2/74
BETWEEN
DANIEL K. CAULKER – APPELLANT
AND
KOMBA KANGAMA – RESPONDENT
REPRESENTATION
Dr. W. S. Marcus Jones with him Garvas Betts, Esq., for the Appellant
Doe Smith Esq., for the Respondent
JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON THE 18TH JUNE, 1975
FACTS
The subject matter of this action touched and concerned certain premises at one time known as 41 Kainkordu Road, Koidu Town, Kono District, but which later came to be known as 83 Main Motor Road. By a specially indorsed Writ of Summons dated 17th day of March, 1972, the Respondent claimed possession of part of the said premises, mesne profits at the rate of Le 40 per month and damages for trespass. The Appellant claimed, inter alia, that at all material times to the action he was the owner of the premises, and that the Appellant was in occupation of part of the said premises, and that despite several demands by the Respondent in April 1964, for the Appellant to quit the said premises, the appellant refused. The Appellant disputed the claim of ownership made by the Respondent of the said premises and averred that he was the owner of the said premises. The Learned Trial Judge considered the issues that were put forward by both counsel and noted that the issues naturally involved a question of title to the said premises.
The Learned Trial Judge dismissed the Respondent’s claim on the ground that the evidence of the Respondent did not support the pleading. The Respondent then appealed to the Court of Appeal on the ground that:
1. The Learned Trial Judge misdirected himself as to the nature of the Appellants’ counterclaim in the previous action between the same parties.
2. The Learned Trial Judge was wrong in law when he said the appellant was indirectly using his Court as an appellate Court
3. The judgment was against the weight of evidence.
The Court of Appeal subsequently ruled against the Appellant (the Respondent at the Court of Appeal), by allowing the appeal and setting aside the decision of the Court below. The Court of Appeal ordered that the Appellant (the Respondent at the Court of Appeal) within 30 days deliver possession of the 2 rooms occupied by him in the premises formerly known as 41 Kainkordu Road, Kono District and later known as 83 Kainkordu Road, Koidu Town, that the Appellant (the Respondent at the Court of Appeal), do pay the Respondent (the Appellant at the Court of Appeal) mesne profits at the rate of Le 28 per annum from the date of issue of the Writ of Summons.
This resulted in the present appeal by the Appellant, Daniel Caulker, at the Supreme Court.
ISSUES
The issues for determination before the Supreme Court were:
1. Whether the High Court of Sierra Leone had any jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the fact that the matter between the parties which the court had to determine was a question of title to land in the provinces.
2. Whether the proper forum ought not to have been the local Court in the Kono District.
FINDINGS/ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court noted that since the pleadings before the Learned trial judge disclosed sufficient material on which the issue of jurisdiction can be based, the Supreme Court can properly entertain the question in spite of the fact that it was not raised in the court below and cited the case of CHIEF ASANTE V. CHIEF KWAME TAWAI (1949) at page 41, thus:
“If it appeared to an appellate court that an order against which an appeal was brought had been made without jurisdiction, it would never be too late to admit and give effect to the plea that the order was a nullity”.
The Supreme Court did not confine this legal doctrine to orders only but also extended it to cover judgments and other decisions of any court. The Supreme Court noted that jurisdiction is not only about the legal authority of the Court but also the extent of the power of a court or judge to entertain an action, petition or other proceeding, and that due consideration ought to be given at any stage particularly so where that jurisdiction is conferred or taken away by statute.
In view of this, it has to be considered that the High Court of Sierra Leone is ousted of the Jurisdiction by virtue of the provisions of sections 21(a) (i) of the Courts Act 1965 (No. 31 OF 1965). Again such contentions, as appreciated by the Supreme Court were deemed to automatically call for the construction of Section 18 (1) and (2) along with sections 21(a) (i) of the Courts Act 1965 (No. 31 OF 1965) for purposes of this appeal.
sections 21(a) (i) of the Courts Act 1965 provides:
21. Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to invest in the High Court with Jurisdiction in regard to:
(a) any action or original proceeding
(i) to determine the title of land situated in the Provinces other than the title to a lease hold granted under the Provinces Land Act.
Of critical note therefore, no question arises for consideration in the present appeal of any leasehold granted to either party of the said premises under the Provinces Land Act. Both parties were each claiming ownership of the said premises which was disputed by the other side.
As respects the second issue of whether the Local Court is invested with the jurisdiction to hear and determine matters that touch and concern the determination of title to land, it might be of interest to compare section 21 of the Courts Act 1965 and section 11 of the Courts Act (Cap 7).
The referred section 11 of the Courts Act (Cap 7) solemnly invests in the Local Court the power to determine questions arising exclusively between natives involving title to land situate within the Provinces.
The main questions to be considered as the law stands at present are:
1. Is the land in question situate in the Provinces, and if so,
2. Does the action relating to the said land raise for determination by the High Court the issue of title to such land other than title to leasehold granted under the Provinces land Act?
Both questions can be answered in the affirmative, hence the jurisdiction of the High Court in the present case is ousted.
DECISION OF THE COURT
The Court in its considered view held in regard the first issue that neither the High Court and the Court of appeal had any jurisdiction under the aforementioned provisions of the Court Act to determine the question of title to land in the provinces. In regard the second limb it was held that the Local Court is vested with the appropriate jurisdiction to hear and determine matters touching and concerning title to land in the Provinces.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and order of the Court of Appeal as well as the judgment of the High Court. The Supreme Court also ordered that every party must bear his costs, and gave both parties the liberty to apply.
WRITTEN BY: Glenn Fallah
EDITED BY Frederick Ishmael Bockarie Esq.,