Sierra Leone Lawn Tennis Association & Ors v. Andy Bam
Application for certiorari to quash High Court decision reinstating the 2009 SLLTA Constitution; reference to Sierra Leone Constitution by High Court did not amount to Constitutional interpretation
Case Name: Sierra Leone Lawn Tennis Association, Kevin Kellie, National Executives of the Sierra Leone Lawn Tennis Association, and The National Sports Authority v. Andy Bam
Court: Supreme Court of Sierra Leone
Date: 27 May 2024
Citation: 2024 SLSC 2
Bench: Hon. Mr. Justice Allan B. Halloway JSC, Hon. Mr. Justice Alusine S. Sesay JSC, Hon. Mr. Justice Mangay F. Deen Tarawally JSC
Keywords: Judicial Review, Certiorari, Constitutional Interpretation, High Court Procedure, Supervisory Jurisdiction
Facts:
The applicants, Sierra Leone Lawn Tennis Association (SLLTA), Kevin Kellie, the National Executives of the SLLTA, and the National Sports Authority, sought judicial review by way of certiorari to quash a decision of the High Court dated 16 June 2023. The High Court had declared the 2020 Constitution of the SLLTA null and void, reinstating the 2009 Constitution. The applicants argued that the High Court's decision was wrong in law because the case involved substantial disputes of fact that required a full trial rather than being decided on an originating summons. They also contended that the High Court judge exceeded his jurisdiction by interpreting the Constitution of Sierra Leone, which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Holdings:
Judicial Review and Certiorari:
Principle of Law: Certiorari is a discretionary remedy used to quash decisions made without jurisdiction or where there has been a significant procedural error.
Applied: The Supreme Court held that the High Court followed the correct procedure by hearing the matter on an originating summons, as the case primarily involved the construction of the 2009 Constitution of the SLLTA. The applicants did not raise any substantial disputes of fact during the High Court proceedings, and their participation in the process undermined their argument for certiorari. The application for certiorari was thus refused.
High Court's Jurisdiction:
Principle of Law: Interpretation of the Constitution of Sierra Leone is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Distinguished: The Supreme Court distinguished between referencing the Constitution of Sierra Leone and interpreting it. The court found that the High Court judge had not interpreted the Constitution of Sierra Leone but merely referenced it in his judgment. Consequently, the High Court did not exceed its jurisdiction.
Procedural Fairness:
Principle of Law: Litigants must raise procedural objections at the earliest opportunity; failure to do so can result in the waiver of those objections.
Applied: The Supreme Court noted that the applicants participated fully in the High Court proceedings without objecting to the procedure used. Their failure to raise concerns during the trial process precluded them from challenging the procedure post-judgment.
Disposition:
The application for an order of certiorari to quash the High Court's decision was refused.
The application for an order of prohibition against the respondent was also refused.
Both parties were ordered to bear their own costs.
Legislation and Regulations Referred to:
Constitution of Sierra Leone, 1991
Sections 125, 171(15), 46(1)
Supreme Court Rules, 1982
High Court Rules, 2007 (Constitutional Instrument No. 7 of 2007)
Order 52, Rule 8(2)
Cases Referred to:
Wellington Distilleries v. Electrodia P. Clarkson (Misc. App. 4/1981, Supreme Court of Sierra Leone) – Applied
Ahmed Tejan Kabbah v. Firetex Company (S.L) Ltd. (Civ.App. 76/1995, Court of Appeal of Sierra Leone) – Applied
International Construction Company v. Zakhem International Construction Company Ltd. (Misc. App 1/2014, Supreme Court of Sierra Leone) – Applied
Republic v. Accra Circuit Court; Ex parte Appiah (1982-83) GLR 129 at 143 CA – Followed
Obeng v. Ampofo (1958, Court of Appeal of Ghana) – Followed
Counsel:
For the Applicants: J.J. Campbell Esq.
For the Respondent: L.M. Baryoh Esq.