Jurisdiction: Sierra Leone (common law jurisdiction)
Court: High Court of Sierra Leone, General Civil Division
Presiding Judge: Hon. Mrs. Justice Fatmata Bintu Alhadi, JA (sitting as a High Court Judge)
Date of Judgment: 12 December 2024
Case Number: CC 179/13
Neutral Citation: [2024] SLHCGD 7
Legal Area(s): Land Law (Provincial Lands, Customary Tenure); Mining Law (Mining Lease, Surface Rent); Contract Law (Lease, Privity, Part Performance); Civil Claims (Debt, Interest, Damages)
Tags: provincial lands; customary land; non native; mining lease; surface rent; arrears; lease formation; part performance; Walsh v Lonsdale; statutory override; privity; Statute of Frauds
Legal Areas
Land law, provincial land, customary tenure, lease agreement, requirement of written instrument and approval for non native occupation, mining lease, surface rent, payment arrangements, family landholding disputes, privity of contract, part performance, equitable lease, Walsh v Lonsdale, Statute of Frauds, arrears of surface rent, claim dismissed.
Style of Cause
Between:
Thomas B.M. Sabbah (for and on behalf of the Gangama Landholding Family, Gangama) … Plaintiff
And
Sierra Rutile Limited … Defendant
Counsel: Maurice Garber Esq for the Plaintiff, Berthan Macaulay Jnr Esq for the Defendant.
Procedural Posture
The action commenced by writ of summons filed on 2 August 2013. The plaintiff sought recovery of alleged arrears of surface rent and related reliefs against the defendant mining company.
By notice of motion dated 11 June 2019, the plaintiff successfully applied (without objection) to amend the statement of claim. The amended claim revised the monetary demand from a leone figure to US$227,559.39. The trial commenced on 28 June 2019. Judgment was delivered on 12 December 2024.
Reliefs Claimed
In the original pleading, the plaintiff sought, among other reliefs:
- Recovery of Le 262,790,280.00 as arrears of surface rent.
- Interest at 35% per annum effective from 2006 until judgment.
- Damages for breach of contract.
- Costs.
Following the allowed amendment, the principal monetary relief was pleaded as US$227,559.39.
Facts of the Case
The plaintiff sued as representative of the Gangama Landholding Family. He asserted customary ownership of land described as Block LM/10A situated at Imperri Chiefdom. The core of the plaintiff’s case was that the defendant had, over a long period, acknowledged the family’s interest in the land by paying surface rent directly to the family, and that the defendant later ceased making those payments.
To support an alleged contractual relationship, the plaintiff relied heavily on a letter dated 17 May 1985 (tendered as an exhibit) said to outline terms of a lease arrangement, including mining use, surface rent payments, and compensation for pollution and damage. The plaintiff’s case was presented as one of a binding arrangement inferred from the 1985 correspondence and the defendant’s subsequent conduct, in particular historical payments.
The defendant’s case, in substance, was that it lawfully occupied and mined within the relevant area under a mining lease executed with the Government (dated 1 July 1984 and registered), and that any surface rent payments were governed by the statutory and administrative framework regulating mining operations and payments, including decisions and directives from state and customary authorities. The defendant contested that any separate enforceable lease existed between it and the plaintiff.
Issues for Determination
- Contract and lease formation: Was there a valid and binding lease agreement between the plaintiff (or his family) and the defendant concerning the disputed land?
- Statutory compliance for provincial lands: If an agreement was alleged, did it satisfy the statutory requirements governing provincial lands transactions involving a non native?
- Surface rent entitlement and privity: Was the defendant obliged in law to pay surface rent directly to the plaintiff, and did the plaintiff have standing or privity to claim arrears from the defendant?
- Remedies: If liability was established, was the plaintiff entitled to the claimed arrears, interest, damages, and costs?
Arguments of the Parties
Plaintiff
- The plaintiff contended that the land was family land held under customary law, and that he had authority as family representative to maintain the action.
- He maintained that the 1985 correspondence and the defendant’s longstanding payment of surface rent evidenced a binding arrangement, or at least conduct amounting to acknowledgment of obligations.
- He relied on concepts of part performance and the enforceability of an agreement by reference to conduct, and invoked Walsh v Lonsdale to support an equitable basis for enforcing obligations said to arise from the arrangement.
- He also relied on the mining statutory framework to argue that surface rent and related compensation must go to rightful beneficiaries.
Defendant
- The defendant denied any separate enforceable lease agreement with the plaintiff, disputing that the 1985 correspondence created legal obligations.
- The defendant relied on its mining lease with Government as the legal basis for its occupation and operations.
- It argued that the Provincial Lands Act (Cap 122) regulates transactions involving provincial lands, particularly where a non native is involved, requiring consent, proper written instruments, and approval. The plaintiff had not produced the legally required instruments.
- It contended that surface rent obligations were governed by statutory arrangements and the mining lease terms, and that historic payments did not convert administrative payments into a private contractual commitment.
Decision
Held: The claim was dismissed.
The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of a valid and binding lease agreement with the defendant, and further failed to show that any alleged transaction met the statutory requirements governing provincial lands transactions involving a non native.
The court accepted that the defendant’s occupation and mining operations were grounded in a mining lease executed with Government and governed by the statutory regime. In those circumstances, the plaintiff did not establish an enforceable basis to recover the pleaded surface rent arrears directly from the defendant.
Legal Reasoning
(1) No proven binding lease between the plaintiff and the defendant
The court approached the claim as one requiring proof of a legally binding relationship capable of grounding a demand for arrears and damages. The plaintiff’s reliance on a letter setting out proposed terms and on subsequent payments did not, on the court’s assessment, satisfy the evidential and legal requirements to establish a binding lease agreement.
(2) Provincial Lands Act requirements for non native land transactions
The court emphasised the statutory scheme governing provincial lands. It treated the defendant, for these purposes, as a non native entity operating in provincial lands, and assessed the pleaded arrangement against the requirements in Cap 122, including the need for consent and documentation, and the approval process.
(3) Equitable lease and part performance, Walsh v Lonsdale distinguished
The plaintiff invoked the equitable doctrine associated with Walsh v Lonsdale. The court rejected the applicability of the doctrine on the facts as presented, treating the absence of the requisite written agreement and statutory compliance as fatal. The court regarded the plaintiff’s reliance on Walsh v Lonsdale as misplaced for the purpose of establishing a binding lease in the face of statutory formalities governing provincial lands.
(4) Surface rent and statutory mining framework
The court considered the mining statutory scheme and the mining lease arrangements relied on by the defendant, and treated them as controlling the defendant’s obligations as to surface rent. It was not satisfied that the plaintiff proved an entitlement to demand the claimed arrears directly from the defendant as a matter of contract or law.
Key Quotations from the Judgment
- “Tenancy is the holding of an interest in land in exchange for rent.”
- “A lease is a contract by which one party conveys land, property, services, etc., to another for a specified time, usually in return for a periodic payment.”
- “The plaintiff’s reliance on Walsh v Lonsdale is misplaced.”
Ratio Decidendi
Where a plaintiff seeks to recover alleged surface rent arrears from a mining company on the basis of a private lease over provincial lands, the plaintiff must prove a valid, binding agreement that also complies with the statutory formalities governing provincial lands transactions involving a non native. In the absence of such proof, and where the defendant’s occupation is grounded in a mining lease executed with Government and governed by mining legislation, the claim for arrears and related contract damages will fail.
Obiter Dicta
- The court underscored the practical value of written agreements in land transactions in reducing disputes and providing clarity of obligations.
- The judgment reflects the court’s caution against treating historical payments, especially those occurring within an administrative framework, as conclusive evidence of a separate private contractual obligation.
Final Orders
- The plaintiff’s claim for US$227,559.39 (and the associated interest and damages claims) was dismissed.
- Costs were awarded to the defendant, to be taxed if not agreed.
Commentary and Practice Note
Practical implications for provincial lands and mining disputes
This decision illustrates a strict approach to claims framed as private lease based obligations in the context of mining operations in provincial lands.
For a claimant:
- It is critical to identify whether the claim is truly contractual (private lease) or regulatory (statutory compensation and surface rent mechanisms).
- Where the defendant is treated as a non native in provincial lands, compliance with Cap 122 formalities becomes a central evidential battleground.
- Reliance on part performance and equitable doctrines will face difficulty if the statutory regime requires specific formalities.
For a mining company:
- Where occupation and payments are governed by a mining lease and regulatory directives, the company should maintain documentary trails showing the basis on which payments were made and altered.
- Where disputes exist among beneficiary families or customary authorities, the company’s exposure may depend on adherence to statutory procedures and ministerial or administrative directives.
Cases and Laws Referred to in the Judgment
Cases
- Walsh v Lonsdale [1882] 21 Ch.D. 9
- Renner-Thomas v Dujism (as cited by the court in discussion of provincial lands and customary tenure)
Legislation and other legal instruments
- The Provincial Lands Act (Cap 122), including sections 2, 3(1), 3(3), and 4
- The Mines and Minerals Act 2009, including sections 34(1) and 35(6)–(7)
- Sierra Rutile Agreement Act 1972 (Ratification Act), as cited
- Sierra Rutile Agreement Act 2002 (Ratification Act), as cited
- Mining Lease dated 1 July 1984 (registered), including clause 3(c)
- Statute of Frauds (as referenced in the judgment in connection with enforceability of alleged agreements)
Tags and Categories
Categories: Land Law, Mining Law, Contract Law, Civil Claims
Tags: provincial lands; customary tenure; mining lease; surface rent; non native; formalities; equitable lease; part performance; privity; arrears; interest; costs.