Kamara v Alex (In Re: Writ of Fieri Fascias issued thereunder between Mansaray and Others v Under Sheriff Law Courts Building and Another (MISC. APP.154/2001 2001 M. NO.14)  SLHC 2 (21 August 2001);
MISC. APP.154/2001 2001 M. NO.14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SIERRA LEONE IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDGMENT IN
JOSEPH KAMARA - PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT
AND MR. ALEX - DEFENDANT/APPLICANT
IN THE MATTER OF THE WRIT OF FIERI FACIAS ISSUED THEREUNDER BETWEEN:
MR. & MRS. MOHAMED SESAY
OHANNESE E. FODAY - APPLICANT/CLAIMANTS
THE UNDER SHERIFF
LAW COURTS BULID1NG -1ST RESPONDENT
JOSEPH KAMARA - JUDGMENT/CREDITOR
Tuesday 21st Before the Hon. Mr. Justice
August, 2001 S.A. Ademosu - J.
M.P. Fofanah deputising G.A.S. Baion for defendant/claimant
S.M. Sesay for the plaintiff/Respondent.
Before dealing with the present application. I think it is necessary to state, in the light of the argument that have been advanced by both counsel in this matter, what an interpleader summons is all about.
Interpleader Summons is a procedure, used to decide how conflicting claims against the same person should be dealt with. It applies when there are two or more claims against the Applicant (whether or not court proceedings have been issued). It applies two or more people claim the same goods that are being held by the Applicant. The court decides how the matter should be dealt with, it may for example, direct that there should be a court action between the rival claimants.
Interpleader can be of two types namely: a stake holder's Interpleader and a sheriff's Interpleader.
A sheriffs Interpleader applies when the Applicant is the "sheriff" who has to deal with rival claims after execution of a 'writ of fifa' when a third party like in the instant case, any third party claims that the goods seized belong to him. In such a case any person making a claims to, or in respect of any money, goods or chattels taken or intended to be taken in execution under process of the court must give notice of his claim to the sheriff charged with the execution of the process and must include in his notice, a statement of his address for services,
On receipt of a claim made, the sheriff will give notice thereof to the execution creditor, who after receiving the notice, give notice to the sheriff informing him whether he admits or disputes the claim.
The person seeking relief in an Interpleader summons called the "Applicant" He is the one who takes out a summons calling on the claimants to appear and state the nature and particulars of the claims either to maintain them or relinquish them.
It must also be noted that if no action is pending, it will be by an originating summons to which a Respondent need not enter appearance. In the instant case it is a Judges summons that has been filed. A Judges summons is never singed but this one is signed by the solicitor who took it out.
I also note that an execution creditor who in the instant case is who is described as Judgment creditor/respondent filed an affidavit opposition.
It is very important to note that in the present application there is no jot of evidence that the claimant. Gave notice of their claims to the sheriff or under sheriff. Moreover there is no evidence that there is a rival claimant. But as the proper procedure has not been followed it is difficult for me to entertain the present application brought on behalf of the claimants without complying the rules. The proper person to bring the present application is the Sheriff or the Under Sheriff and such application can only be made by him if there is a rival claimant as I have already outlined in the ruling.
An Interpleader Summons is not taken out where there is no rival claimant because the need for it does not arise. It is for all the foregoing reasons that I dismiss the Judges Summons dated 24th July, 2001 which showing Mr. Alex as the claimant/defendant whereas the affidavit sworn to by him reveals that he is laying no claim to any of the property alleged to have been seized. 1 rule that the application is procedurally irregular. This is because
Judgment/Creditor/Respondent does not lay any claim to any of the goods claim to have been seized in execution. There is also nothing to show that any application or notice has been given to the Under Sheriff as required by-Law. The Sum total of all is that I find myself unable to entertain the application as it is. I shall therefore Not comment on the merits of the claim as counsel for the judgment/creditor/respondent invited me to do. Suffice it to say that this application is dismissed.
We Order as to Costs
(sgd) S.A.Ademosu - J. 21.8.2001.
CERTIFIED TRUE COPY MASTER AND REGISTRAR.