Q&A Law School

Q&A BOOK
SIERRA LEONE LAW SCHOOL

CLASS OF 2023/2024
A compilation of adequate answers to past and possible questions for the
Sierra Leone Law School interview.
Q&A LAW SCHOOL INTERVIEW
WHY DID YOU APPLY TO THE SIERRA LEONE LAW SCHOOL & WHY
DO YOU WANT TO BE CALLED TO THE BAR?
There are numerous reasons as to why one may aspire to operate in the legal profession; to take
part in the assertion of justice and its values, to strengthen the skills of negotiation, mediation and
advocacy, among a plethora of others. For me, it’s more for being a better person altogether; to be
able to provide for my family and to make my family proud; that’s what drives us all anyway, to
create a better life for our kin. In my humble opinion, it is the highest honor that can be bestowed
on someone; to be called a Barrister & Solicitor of the Judicature of Sierra Leone. That achievement
alone will make any parent proud; that’s why I want to be called to the bar.
WHAT ARE FIVE (5) QUALITIES OF A LAWYER?

There are many qualities that are becoming of any person aspiring to be a lawyer; some important
ones are: A lawyer must be a person of upstanding, moral character & integrity; a person of
calm and poise as an advocate for his clients, one with the ability of critical thinking to
analytically configure and dismantle any argument, judging from any angle. A lawyer must be
a reservoir or a search engine of legal knowledge, in that every lawyer must have qualities
of legal knowledge and legal research. Finally, any person with the aspiration of becoming a
lawyer must be interpersonal, in that he must have people skills because the practice of the law
is not an abstract one; such a person should be able to work with people, on behalf of people
regarding decisions that affect their very livelihoods.
NAME FIVE (5) JUSTICES OF EACH LEVEL OF THE SUPERIOR

JUDICATURE OF SIERRA LEONE
Justices of the Supreme Court of Justice include:
His Lordship, Hon. Justice Desmond Babatunde Edwards;

Her Ladyship, Hon. Justice Vivian Margaret Solomon, JSC;
His Lordship, Hon. Justice Allan Baami Halloway, JSC;
His Lordship, Hon. Justice Nicholas Colin Browne-Marke, JSC;
His Lordship, Hon. Justice Mangeh Fana Deen-Tarawally, JSC; and
His Lordship, Hon. Justice Alusine Sesay, JSC.
Justices of the Court of Appeal include:

Hon. Justice Reginald Fynn;
Hon. Justice Monfred M. Sesay;
Hon. Justice Sulaiman Bah;
Hon. Justice Bintu Alhadi; and
Page 1
Hon. Justice Momojah A. Stevens.
Justices of the High Court of Justice include:
Hon. Dr. Justice Abou Bhakarr Binneh-Kamara;
Hon. Justice Michael Philip Mami;
Hon. Justice Lornard Jadyn Michael Taylor;
Hon. Justice Adrian Fisher; and
Hon. Justice Albert J. Moody.
WHO IS THE CURRENT MASTER & REGISTRAR OF SIERRA LEONE?

The current Master & Registrar of the High Court of Sierra Leone is Madame Elaine Thomas-
Archibald.
WHO IS THE CURRENT ATTORNEY GENERAL & MINISTER OF

JUSTICE OF SIERRA LEONE?
The current Attorney General and Minister of Justice of Sierra Leone is Mr. Mohamed Lamin
Tarawalley, Esq.
WHO IS THE CURRENT PRESIDENT OF THE SIERRA LEONE BAR

ASSOCIATION?
The current President of the Sierra Leone Bar Association is Ms. Eddinia Michaela Swallow, Esq.
WHO IS THE CURRENT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF SIERRA LEONE?

The current Solicitor General of Sierra Leone is Mr. Robert Baoma Kowa, Esq.
WHO IS THE CURRENT DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION OF

SIERRA LEONE?
The current Director of Public Prosecution of Sierra Leone is Mr. Osman Ibrahim Kanu, Esq.
WHAT IS THE STRUCTURE OF THE COURT SYSTEM IN SIERRA LEONE

IN HIERARCHICAL ORDER?
The Constitution of Sierra Leone (Act No. 6 of 1991) established the Judiciary as well as the
Superior Courts of Judicature and their respective jurisdictions. Under Section 120 (4) of the
Constitution, the Superior Courts, which comprise of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and the
High Court are provided for. The inferior and traditional courts, on the other hand, which comprise
of the Magistrate Courts and the Local Courts are provided for under legislations. The Courts Act
Page 2
(1965, as amended in 1989) governs the Magistrates Courts and their jurisdictions while the Local
Courts Act of 1963 (repealed and replaced in 2011) governs the Local Courts and their
jurisdictions. The hierarchical order of the Sierra Leone court system is, in ascending order, as
follows: Local Courts (pursuant to the Local Courts Act 2011), Magistrates Courts/District
Appeals’ Court (pursuant to the Courts Act, 1965, as amended in 1989) and the Superior
Courts of Judicature, which comprise of the High Court of Justice, Court of Appeal and the
Supreme Court, all provided for pursuant to Act No. 6 of 1991, specifically established under
Section 120 (4).
WHAT ARE THE SOURCES OF LAW IN SIERRA LEONE?

Pursuant to Section 170 (1) of the Constitution of Sierra Leone and a few other legal documents
and principles, there are varying sources of law in the Sierra Leone jurisdiction, ranging from the
ultimate source being the constitution to legal articles, thesauruses and texts. They are as follows,
by order of legal efficacy:
THE CONSTITUTION: This is the supreme law of the land [pursuant to Section 171(15)]
and provides, among other things, the framework for the governance of the country. It also
outlines the structures of government, parliament and the judiciary (Pursuant to Chapter V,
VI & VII respectively), fundamental human rights and freedoms (Pursuant to Chapter III),
and the principles that govern the conduct of public affairs (Pursuant to Chapter II). In
addition, it also indicates the laws of the state of Sierra Leone (Pursuant to Chapter XII).
LEGISLATION/STATUTE LAW: This includes Acts of Parliament and delegated legislation,
statutory and constitutional instruments, regulations, and orders. These are laws made by
the legislative branch of government and cover a wide range of subjects, such as criminal
law, property law, commercial law, Mercantile Law, among a plethora of other legal realms.
This is distinguished into statutes adopted from the UK and statutes created by the Sierra
Leone Parliament. An example of the former is the Larceny Act (1916) and an example of
the latter is the Sexual Offences Act (2008, as amended in 2019).
CUSTOMARY LAW: Customary law is based on traditional practices and customs of the
various ethnic groups in Sierra Leone. It is recognized by the courts and applied in cases
where it does not conflict with the Constitution or statutory law. There are apt definitions
given for it under the Local Courts Act (2011) and the 1991 Constitution.
CASE LAW/JUDICIAL PRECEDENT: Case law is a vast body of law that judges create (the
incremental approach, for example) on a case-by-case basis, as they make rulings and as
they determine the precise meaning of a law or regulation. Judges review the rulings of
other judges in search of legal principles that can be applied to the dispute that comes before
them and are obligated to follow a precedent set by a higher court in their jurisdiction, under
a principle known as stare decisis - (a Latin term meaning standing by former decisions).
This source of law is divided into two (2) elements: the ratio decidendi (i.e., reason for the
Page 3
decision), which is for the most part binding, and obiter dictum/dicta (i.e., a speculation
made by the way), which is more of a persuasive element rather than binding.
COMMON LAW: In the Sierra Leone legal system, the common law was introduced to work
alongside customary law and Statute law. Section 74 of the Courts Act, 1965 provides
specifically that Common law enforced in England up to the 1st January 1880 shall always
apply in Sierra Leone. If there is nothing in the Constitution to cover a situation, and if no
specific law has been passed by parliament to address a situation, a court in a
commonwealth country may decide the case depending upon English common law.
EQUITY: Equity generally means fairness and itis often referred to as Natural Justice. This
refers to the English doctrines of equity as they have over time evolved in England and Sierra
Leone. The 1991 Constitution states that Customary Law shall not prevail if it is in conflict
with Natural Law, Equity and good conscience. This is simply because in interpreting any
rule of custom, it is important to do justice to the parties in dispute.
LEGAL TEXTS & WRITINGS: The legal texts and writings of eminent jurists and scholars
such as Law textbooks, dictionaries, encyclopedias, annotated law reports and periodicals
may also serve as a source of law. They can however be categorized as secondary sources of
law since they offer analysis, commentary, or a persuasive restatement of primary law and
are useful in the location and explanations of primary sources of law.
GIVE A BRIEF EXPLANATION ON YOUR DISSERTATION AND ITS

FINDINGS.
My dissertation topic is the Legal Exigency for effective e-commerce legislation in Sierra Leone,
which is a study conducted to illustrate the necessity for e-commerce legislation herein by
primarily comparing statutes in effect in the states of the UK, South Africa & Ghana. I commenced
this study by analyzing the modern concept of e-commerce, its provenance in international law
under instruments such as UNCITRAL and OECD and its possible workability in the Sierra Leone
legal climate. I then went forward to compare and contrast between provisions in statutes of other
states regarding a host of e-commerce concepts, such as e-government, e-signatures, e-contracts,
consumer protection and cybercrimes. Arguably the most relevant find of this study is that back in
2019, the Sierra Leone Parliament debated on a bill titled the Electronic Transactions Bill (2018),
which was concluded to be not relevant at the time under review but with the exigencies of time
and the fast-growing nature and usage of electronic commerce in Sierra Leone, the need for said
law is not existent and prevalent. However, this is now far from the case in Sierra Leone as online
businesses are forming on a daily basis.
Page 4
WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF SECTION (74) OF THE COURTS ACT
(NO. 31 OF 1965)?
The significance of section (74) in Sierra Leone law cannot be overemphasized. It provides that
subject to the provisions encapsulated in the grundnorm (i.e., the constitution) and any other
enactment, the common law, doctrines of equity, and statutes of general application in force in
England on the 1st Day of January, 1880, shall be in force in Sierra Leone. Contextually, this
emphasizes that any general law put into force by the Crown to govern the British people, along
with the Common Law and principles of equity on or prior to the 1st Day of January, 1880, shall
have legal efficacy in the Sierra Leone jurisdiction; Examples of such a statute are the Statute of
Frauds (1677) and the Offences Against the Person’s Act (1861). However, there are statutes
enacted in the UK post 1880 that have legal efficacy in Sierra Leone (i.e., the consolidated laws of
Sierra Leone, adopted from the British), such as the Larceny Act (1916), the Perjury Act (1911)
and the Forgery Act (1913), each of which are succinctly provided for under CAP 27 of the Laws
of Sierra Leone (1960), Imperial Statutes (Criminal Law) Adoption. Other such examples are
provided for in CAP 18 of the Laws of Sierra Leone (1960), Imperial Statutes (Law of
Property) Adoption; such as the Conveyancing and Law of Property Acts (1881, 1882 &
1911), the Trustee Act (1888) and the Trustees Appointment Act (1890). Conclusively, the
reception clause is a constitutive part of the Sierra Leone legal system and it illustrates the
development of law in Sierra Leone.
WHAT IS THE PRINCIPLE OF CAVEAT EMPTOR?

The principle of "Caveat Emptor" is a Latin term that translates to "Let the buyer beware." It is a
fundamental concept in the realm of commerce and contract law. The principle places the
responsibility on the buyer to exercise caution, do their due diligence, and take necessary
precautions before making a purchase. In other words, it implies that buyers should be aware of
the potential risks and flaws associated with a product or service before they commit to the
transaction. In the case of Smith v Hughes (1870) LR 6 QB 597, the complainant (Smith) brought
a sample of his oats to the defendant (Hughes), to use as feed for his racehorse. Hughes, upon this,
ordered 40-50 quarters of oats, which he refused to pay for post-delivery because the oats he is
required to use as horse feed is old oats but Smith’s oats were green. Smith was held to be under
no duty to inform Mr. Hughes of his possible mistake about the kind of oats he was purchasing;
Smith supplied the same oats as the first sample he gave to Hughes, which influenced Hughes to
purchase more in the first place, thereby Cockburn CJ reaffirmed the old idea of caveat emptor
(buyer beware), in that he had to be cautious about the necessary details of any contractual
engagement.
This principle is particularly important in transactions where there is an "as-is" or "without

warranty" clause, meaning the seller is not offering any guarantees or assurances about the quality
Page 5
or condition of the product. In such cases, if the buyer discovers any issues or problems after the
purchase is made, they generally cannot hold the seller legally responsible. However, it's worth
noting that consumer protection laws in various jurisdictions may modify the extent of Caveat
Emptor. In many modern legal systems, there are regulations that protect buyers from fraud,
misrepresentation, or the sale of dangerous goods, even if the principle of Caveat Emptor is still
relevant to some extent.
WHAT IS THE PRINCIPLE OF HE WHO ASSERTS MUST PROVE?

"He who asserts must prove" is a legal principle that means the burden of proof lies with the
person making a claim or assertion. In any legal dispute or argument, the person who is making a
statement or alleging something has the responsibility to provide sufficient evidence or proof to
support their claim. In other words, if someone makes a claim, accusation, or assertion in a court
of law or any other context, it is their duty to present credible and convincing evidence to
substantiate what they are saying. The burden of proof ensures that the person making the claim
has the obligation to demonstrate the truth or validity of their position. This principle is
fundamental to many legal systems around the world and is based on the idea that it is fair and
reasonable to require the person making a claim to support it with evidence, rather than expecting
the other party to disprove it.
The burden of proof helps maintain the integrity of the legal process and ensures that decisions are
made based on evidence and facts, rather than mere allegations or unsupported claims. The Latin
maxim "ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat", meaning the burden of proof lies on he
who asserts, not he who denies (i.e., he who asserts must prove). This was applied by Lords Wright,
Porter & Magnum in the House of Lords' decision in JOSEPH CONSTANTINE STEAMSHIP LINE V.
IMPERIAL SMELTING, CORPORATION [1942] AC 154. In the case of JOHN R. O. WRIGHT & ORS
V THE MANAGEMENT OF WEST AFRICAN LOGISTICS COMPANY (2019) SLHC 9, on page 11,
Sengu Koroma J (as he then was) stated that it is a principle of law that he who asserts must affirm.
WHAT IS THE BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL AND

CIVIL CASES?
The "Burden of Proof" and "Standard of Proof" are critical legal principles that dictate how the
evidence is evaluated and the level of certainty required to establish guilt or innocence. These
principles safeguard the rights of the accused and ensure that the state must meet certain criteria
before convicting someone of a crime.
The Burden of Proof is the responsibility placed on one party in a legal dispute to provide sufficient
evidence to support their claims. In civil cases, the burden of proof typically rests on the plaintiff
(the party bringing the lawsuit). In criminal cases, the Burden of Proof rests entirely on the
prosecution, which is usually represented by the state or government. The prosecution has the
Page 6
responsibility to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime they
have been charged with. The burden lies with the prosecution to present sufficient evidence to
persuade the judge or jury that the accused committed the offense. The defendant in a criminal
case is not required to prove their innocence. Instead, they are presumed innocent until proven
guilty. In civil cases, the burden of proof typically rests on the plaintiff (the party bringing the
lawsuit). It is the plaintiff's duty to present evidence and persuade the court that their version of
the facts is more likely true than not. As the case progresses, the defendant may also have a burden
of proof for any counterclaims or affirmative defenses they raise. In these situations, the defendant
must provide evidence to support their counterclaims or defenses. If the plaintiff successfully
meets the standard of proof and convinces the court that their claims are more likely true than not,
they will prevail in the civil case. However, if the plaintiff fails to meet this standard, the defendant
will be successful, and the plaintiff's claims will be dismissed. The outcome of a civil case is
determined by whether the party with the burden of proof can meet the required standard of proof.
The Standard of Proof refers to the level of certainty or degree of persuasion required to establish
the facts of a case. The Standard of Proof in criminal cases is known as "beyond a reasonable
doubt." This is a high standard of certainty, and it means that the evidence presented by the
prosecution must leave no reasonable doubt in the minds of the judge and/or jury that the
defendant committed the crime. The "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is much higher than the
"balance of probabilities" standard used in civil cases. It demands a near-certainty that the
defendant is guilty, and any doubt that remains after considering all the evidence must be
reasonable and not based on mere speculation. If the prosecution successfully meets the "beyond a
reasonable doubt" standard and convinces the judge or jury that the defendant is guilty, the accused
will be convicted of the crime. However, if the prosecution fails to meet this high standard and
reasonable doubts remain, the defendant must be acquitted and found not guilty. In civil cases, the
standard of proof is generally known as the "balance of probabilities" or "preponderance of the
evidence." This means that the party with the burden of proof must show that it is more likely than
not that their version of the facts is true. To meet the "balance of probabilities" standard, the
evidence presented must convince the judge or jury that there is a greater than 50% chance that
the claims being made by the party with the burden of proof are true. In other words, the evidence
must tip the scale slightly in favor of the party presenting the case.
The locus classicus case of Woolmington v DPP (1935) UKHL 1, specifically Lord Viscount
Sankey’s “Golden Thread” speech is instructive on Burden of Proof; whereas Milner v Minister of
Pensions (1947) 2 All ER 372 is instructive on Standard of Proof.
WHAT ARE THE TURNBULL GUIDELINES?

The Turnbull Guidelines, also known as the "Turnbull direction," are guidelines provided to jurors
in criminal trials to assist them in assessing and weighing the credibility and reliability of
Page 7
eyewitness identification evidence. These guidelines were established in the case of R v. Turnbull
(1977) and are used to address situations where identification evidence is a crucial aspect of the
case. The guidelines are intended to ensure that jurors evaluate eyewitness identification evidence
with caution and consider various factors that could affect its accuracy. The Turnbull Guidelines
include the following key points:
1. Quality of the Identification: The judge should instruct the jury to consider the
circumstances under which the identification was made, including lighting conditions,
distance from the witness to the perpetrator, and the duration of observation.
2. Caution on Reliance: The judge should caution the jury to be careful when relying solely
on identification evidence, especially if there is no other supporting evidence.
3. Opportunity to Observe: The jury should assess whether the witness had a clear and
adequate opportunity to observe the perpetrator during the event.
4. Witness's Level of Confidence: The jury should consider the witness's level of confidence
in their identification and evaluate whether this confidence is consistent with the witness's
performance in court.
5. Prior Description: The jury should take into account any description the witness gave of
the perpetrator prior to making the identification.
6. Accuracy and Errors: The jury should be aware that mistaken identifications can occur
even when a witness is confident. Factors such as stress, fear, and the passage of time can
impact the accuracy of identifications.
7. Identification Procedure: The jury should assess the fairness and reliability of the
identification procedure used (e.g., lineup or photo array), including whether the procedure
was conducted without undue influence.
8. Motivation or Bias: The jury should consider whether there might be any motive or bias
on the part of the witness that could influence their identification.
9. Other Identifications: If a witness has identified other individuals in the past or during the
same incident, the jury should evaluate the reliability of each identification separately.
10. Identification Evidence Alone: If identification evidence is the sole or main evidence in
the case, the jury should approach it with caution and consider whether there is additional
supporting evidence.
WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SECTIONS 18 & 20 OF THE

OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSONS’ ACT (1861)?
The Offences Against the Person Act (1861) is an English law that has been in force for quite some
time. It contains various sections dealing with different offenses against individuals. Without the
full context of the sections, it is challenging to provide a precise answer. However, I can give you a
general overview of Sections 18 and 20 of the Act:
Page 8
Section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act (1861) deals with the offense of wounding or
causing grievous bodily harm with intent. This means that if a person unlawfully wounds or
inflicts serious harm on another individual and does so with the intention of causing grievous
bodily harm, they may be charged with an offense under this section. The offense is more severe
when it involves intent. Section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act (1861), on the other
hand, addresses the offense of unlawfully wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm without
specific intent. This means that if a person unlawfully causes harm to another individual but does
not have the specific intent to cause grievous bodily harm, they may be charged under this section.
The offense is still serious, but it is categorized differently due to the absence of a specific intent
element.
In summary, the main difference between Sections 18 and 20 is the element of intent. Section 18
requires that there be an intention to cause grievous bodily harm (i.e., specific intent), whereas
Section 20 does not require specific intent and can be charged when the harm caused is serious but
not necessarily intended to be so (i.e., basic intent).
WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT CRIMES PROVIDED FOR IN THE

OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT (1861)?
The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OAPA 1861) is an important piece of legislation in the
United Kingdom that deals with various crimes against the person. Here is a list of some of the key
crimes provided for in the OAPA 1861:
1. Murder (Section 1)
2. Manslaughter (Section 5)
3. Grievous Bodily Harm (Section 18)
4. Unlawful Wounding (Section 20)
5. Administering Poison (Section 11)
6. Threats to Kill (Section 16)
7. Bigamy (Section 57)
8. Abortion (Sections 58-59)
9. Sodomy & Bestiality (Section 61)
10. Assault occasioning bodily harm (Section 47)
EXPLAIN THE SALOMON PRINCIPLE IN COMPANY LAW

The Salomon principle, also known as the "Salomon doctrine" or "Salomon rule," is a fundamental
concept in company law that arises from the landmark legal case Salomon v. A Salomon & Co Ltd,
which was decided by the House of Lords (now the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom) in 1897.
The case involved Mr. Aron Salomon, who was a boot and shoe manufacturer running his business
as a sole proprietorship. He decided to incorporate his business as a private limited company, A
Page 9
Salomon & Co Ltd, with himself, his wife, and five of his children as shareholders. He held most of
the company's shares, and the company also owed him a significant amount of money.
Unfortunately, the company faced financial difficulties and eventually went bankrupt. When the
company was wound up, the liquidator argued that the company's debts should be paid first before
any repayment to Mr. Salomon, given his substantial influence over the company. However, the
House of Lords ruled in favor of Salomon and established the Salomon principle, which holds in
threefold that:
1. A company is a separate legal entity: Upon incorporation, a company becomes a distinct

legal entity that is separate from its shareholders, directors, and other officers. It is
considered a "legal person" in the eyes of the law, capable of owning assets, incurring
liabilities, and conducting business independently from its owners;
2. Limited liability of shareholders: Shareholders' liability is limited to the value of their
shares in the company. In case the company becomes insolvent, shareholders are not
personally liable for the company's debts beyond their investment in the company.
3. Corporate veil: The concept of the "corporate veil" refers to the legal separation between
the company and its shareholders. It means that the debts and obligations of the company
are distinct from those of its owners, and generally, the courts will not "pierce the corporate
veil" to hold shareholders personally liable for the company's debts.
The Salomon principle has had a profound impact on company law and business practices. It
provides a strong basis for investors to invest in companies without fearing unlimited personal
liability. However, in certain exceptional circumstances, the courts may disregard the Salomon
principle and pierce the corporate veil to hold shareholders or directors personally liable for the
company's debts. This typically occurs when there is evidence of fraudulent or improper conduct
to use the company as a facade to shield personal liability or to perpetrate a fraud on third parties.
Such instances, though, are relatively rare and require compelling evidence of abuse of the
corporate structure.
STATE & EXPLAIN GENERAL DEFENCES IN CRIMINAL LAW

In criminal law, general defenses are legal principles and arguments that can be used by a
defendant to mitigate or completely eliminate their criminal liability for an alleged offense. These
defenses focus on factors that, if proven, can either negate an essential element of the crime or
provide a justification or excuse for the defendant's actions. It's important to note that the
availability and application of these defenses can vary depending on the jurisdiction and the
specific circumstances of the case. Here are some common general defenses:
1. Self-Defense: This defense allows a person to use reasonable force to protect themselves
or others from imminent and unlawful physical harm. The key elements usually include a
Page 10
genuine belief in the need for self-defense, a proportionate use of force, and an immediate
threat.
2. Necessity: This defense asserts that the defendant committed a criminal act out of necessity
to prevent a greater harm. For example, stealing food to avoid starvation in an emergency
situation might be considered a necessity defense.
3. Duress: Duress is a defense that claims the defendant was forced to commit a crime under
the threat of serious harm or death. The idea is that the defendant's actions were not truly
voluntary due to the external pressure.
4. Mistake of Fact: If the defendant can show that they genuinely and reasonably believed in
certain facts that, if true, would have made their actions legal, they may use this defense. It
essentially argues that the defendant lacked the necessary intent or knowledge to commit
the crime.
5. Insanity: The insanity defense asserts that the defendant was mentally incapable of
understanding the nature and quality of their actions or of distinguishing right from wrong
at the time the crime was committed.
6. Intoxication: Involuntary intoxication (e.g., being drugged without consent) can sometimes
be used as a defense if it impairs the defendant's ability to form the necessary intent for the
crime. Voluntary intoxication is often not a valid defense, especially for crimes requiring
specific intent.
7. Automatism: This defense asserts that the defendant's actions were involuntary and not
under their conscious control, often due to a physical or mental condition.
WHAT CONSTITUTES A SUCCESSFUL CLAIM OF SELF-DEFENSE?

A successful claim of self-defense typically requires the defendant to demonstrate certain key
elements to justify their actions as lawful and necessary. These elements may vary somewhat
depending on the jurisdiction, but in general, they include:
1. Imminent Threat: The defendant must show that they faced an imminent threat of bodily
harm or death. This means that the danger was immediate and there was no reasonable
opportunity to escape or seek help.
2. Proportionality: The force used by the defendant must be proportionate to the threat they
faced. In other words, the level of force used must not exceed what is reasonably necessary
to defend against the threat.
3. Necessity: The defendant must establish that the use of force was necessary to prevent or
stop the threat. If there was a reasonable alternative to using force, the self-defense claim
may be weakened.
4. No Provocation: The defendant's use of force should not have been provoked or instigated
by their own actions. If the defendant contributed to the situation that led to the threat, their
claim of self-defense might be undermined.
Page 11
5. Reasonable Person Standard: Some jurisdictions apply a "reasonable person" standard,
which assesses whether a reasonable person in the same situation would have believed that
the use of force was necessary for self-defense.
6. Retreat: Some jurisdictions require the defendant to demonstrate that they had no
reasonable opportunity to retreat or escape the threat before resorting to the use of force.
Other jurisdictions have a "stand your ground" principle, which allows individuals to use
force without a duty to retreat if they are lawfully present in a place where they have a right
to be.
EXPLAIN THE EGGSHELL-SKULL PRINCIPLE

The "Eggshell Skull Rule" is a legal principle that states that a defendant is responsible for all the
harm caused to a victim, even if the victim's physical or mental condition makes them more
vulnerable to injury than an average person. In simpler terms, if a defendant's actions cause harm
to a person, they can't escape liability just because the person's condition was more fragile or
sensitive than usual. The defendant takes the victim as they find them, "like an eggshell skull" –
meaning they're responsible for the full extent of the harm they cause, even if it's more severe due
to the victim's pre-existing condition (i.e., you take your victim as you find him/her).
R v Blaue (1975) is a notable case in English criminal law that deals with the issue of causation
and the "thin skull" or "eggshell skull" rule. The case helped establish the principle that a defendant
is responsible for the full extent of harm caused to a victim, even if the victim had a pre-existing
condition that made them more vulnerable to the harm. In this case, the defendant, Blaue, stabbed
the victim, a young woman working as a Jehovah's Witness, after she refused his advances. Blaue's
attack caused severe injuries, and the victim would likely have survived if she had received a blood
transfusion. However, due to her religious beliefs, she refused the transfusion and died. During the
trial, Blaue argued that the victim's refusal of medical treatment broke the chain of causation and
that he should not be held fully responsible for her death. The court rejected this argument and
convicted Blaue of manslaughter. The case established the "thin skull" rule, which essentially
means that a defendant must take their victim as they find them, regardless of any pre-existing
conditions or characteristics that may make the victim more susceptible to harm. In other words,
the court told him that given that her religion prohibited receiving blood transfusions, he was
criminally liable for manslaughter.
CAN A PERSON SUE UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW?

Yes, under certain circumstances, a victim may have the ability to seek legal remedies under
international law. However, it's important to note that international law primarily governs the
relationships and conduct between states and international organizations, and it is less developed
in terms of providing direct avenues for individuals (including victims) to sue on an international
Page 12
level. Nonetheless, there are some mechanisms and situations where victims may seek justice or
remedies under international law:
International Human Rights Law: International human rights treaties, such as the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, establish
fundamental rights and protections for individuals. Some international human rights treaties have
mechanisms that allow individuals to submit complaints to international bodies, such as the
Human Rights Committee or regional human rights courts, after they have exhausted domestic
remedies. If a state's actions or omissions violate a person's human rights, victims may be able to
seek remedies through these mechanisms.
International Criminal Law: International criminal law deals with the prosecution of individuals
for serious crimes of international concern, such as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against
humanity. Individuals who have suffered harm as a result of these crimes may participate as
witnesses or victims in international criminal proceedings before international tribunals, such as
the International Criminal Court (ICC) or ad hoc tribunals like the International Criminal Tribunal
for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) or even
the Special Court of Sierra Leone (SLSC).
State Responsibility and Diplomatic Protection: In cases where a state's actions have caused
harm to foreign nationals, the victim's home state may engage in diplomatic protection on behalf
of the victim. This involves diplomatic negotiations between states to seek compensation or other
remedies for the victim.
International Organizations and NGOs: Victims may seek support from international
organizations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that work on human rights or specific
issues, such as refugees, trafficking, or torture. These organizations can provide advocacy, legal
assistance, and support in seeking remedies at various levels.
The avenues for seeking remedies under international law can be complex and may vary depending
on the specific circumstances, the nature of the harm, and the relevant international legal
frameworks. Additionally, the enforcement of international law can be challenging, as it often relies
on the cooperation of states and other actors. In many cases, seeking remedies through domestic
legal systems may be a more practical and effective option for victims.
EXPLAIN THE JUS COGENS AND OPINIO JURIS NORMS

Jus Cogens and Opinio Juris are concepts within international law that pertain to the hierarchy and
nature of customary international law.
1. Jus Cogens: Jus Cogens (Latin for "compelling law") refers to a set of fundamental principles
and norms in international law that are considered to be universally accepted and binding
Page 13
on all states, regardless of whether they have explicitly consented to them. Jus Cogens norms
are considered peremptory norms that hold a special status above other customary
international law norms. They are seen as so fundamental to the international legal order
that they cannot be violated or derogated from by any state or treaty. Examples of Jus Cogens
norms include prohibitions against genocide, slavery, torture, aggressive war, and crimes
against humanity. These norms are considered to reflect fundamental principles of human
rights, the protection of individuals, and the maintenance of global peace and security.
2. Opinio Juris: Opinio Juris (Latin for "opinion as to law") refers to the belief or acceptance
by states that a particular practice is legally required under international law. In the context
of customary international law, Opinio Juris is crucial for the formation and recognition of
customary norms. It signifies that states engage in a certain practice not merely out of
convenience or habit, but because they consider it a legal obligation. Opinio Juris is one of
the two elements required for the creation of customary international law, the other being
state practice. For a customary norm to emerge, states must engage in a consistent and
general practice (state practice) while also believing that the practice is legally required
(Opinio Juris). This means that even if a practice is widely followed by states, it does not
become customary international law unless there is a genuine belief that the practice is
obligatory.
In summary, Jus Cogens norms are peremptory norms in international law that are universally
accepted and cannot be violated, while Opinio Juris refers to the belief held by states that a certain
practice is legally required under customary international law. Both concepts play important roles
in shaping and defining the rules and principles that govern states' behavior in the international
arena.
EXPLAIN THE PRINCIPLE IN RYLANDS V FLETCHER

The rule in Rylands v. Fletcher is a landmark common law doctrine in tort law that deals with strict
liability for non-natural use of land. It was established by the House of Lords (now the Supreme
Court of the United Kingdom) in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher in 1868. The case involved two
neighboring landowners: Thomas Fletcher and John Rylands. Rylands hired contractors to
construct a reservoir on his land to supply water to his mill. Unbeknownst to Rylands, the
contractors failed to properly seal the reservoir, causing water to escape and flood Fletcher's
adjoining coal mine when the reservoir was filled. As a result, Fletcher sued Rylands for damages.
The court held that even though Rylands had not been negligent in his actions (he had not
personally caused the escape of water), he was still liable for the damages caused by the flooding.
This marked a departure from the traditional principles of negligence-based liability, as Rylands
had not acted negligently himself.
Page 14
The rule in Rylands v. Fletcher, in essence, states the following conditions for establishing strict
liability:
1. The defendant must bring onto their land something likely to do mischief if it escapes (e.g.,
hazardous substances, dangerous animals, etc.). This is often referred to as the "non-natural
use of land".
2. The thing brought onto the land must escape and cause damage to a neighboring property.
The escape could be due to the defendant's negligence, but the rule does not require proof
of negligence; strict liability applies.
3. The damage caused must be a direct result of the escape.
It is important to note that the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher has certain limitations:
a) It applies to non-natural uses of land. Normal uses of land, such as domestic or agricultural
activities, do not fall under this rule.
b) The defendant will not be liable if the escape of the thing is due to an act of God or the
claimant's fault.
c) The damages that can be claimed are limited to direct physical damage to the claimant's
property and do not extend to personal injuries or pure economic loss.
WHAT ARE THE OFFENCES TO PERSONS AND TO PROPERTY?

Offenses to persons and offenses to property are categories of crimes in criminal law that involve
harm or unlawful actions against individuals or their belongings. These categories encompass a
range of specific crimes that can vary based on jurisdiction and legal definitions. Here's an overview
of these two categories:
Offenses to Persons: Offenses to persons, also known as personal offenses or crimes against
persons, involve harm, injury, or threats directed at individuals. These offenses typically violate a
person's physical or psychological well-being. Some common examples of offenses to persons
include:
1. Assault: Intentionally causing the apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact

without actual physical contact. It may involve threats or gestures that create fear of harm.
2. Battery: Intentionally and unlawfully causing physical harm or offensive contact with
another person.
3. Homicide: The unlawful killing of another person. This category includes murder
(intentional killing), manslaughter (unintentional killing), and other related offenses.
4. Kidnapping: Unlawfully and forcefully abducting and holding a person against their will.
5. Rape and Sexual Assault: Forcing or coercing someone to engage in unwanted sexual acts
against their will.
Page 15
6. Robbery: Taking property from another person's possession by using force, threats, or
intimidation.
Offenses to Property: Offenses to property, also known as property crimes, involve actions that
interfere with the rights of individuals or entities regarding their belongings or property. These
offenses do not directly harm a person's physical well-being but focus on the protection of property
rights. Some common examples of offenses to property include:
1. Burglary: Illegally entering a dwelling at night with the intent to commit a crime, typically
theft.
2. Housebreaking: Illegally entering a building with the intent to commit a crime, typically
theft.
3. Larceny: Similar to theft, it involves the unlawful taking and carrying away of another
person's property with the intent to permanently deprive them of it.
4. Embezzlement: Illegally appropriating property or funds entrusted to one's care, typically
by an employer.
5. Fraud: Deceiving someone with the intent to gain a financial advantage or cause a loss to
the victim. Examples include identity theft, wire fraud, and tax evasion.
6. Vandalism: Willfully damaging or destroying another person's property.
7. Arson: Intentionally setting fire to property, often with criminal intent.
WHAT ARE THE VITIATING FACTORS IN CONTRACT LAW?

In contract law, vitiation refers to the circumstances or factors that can invalidate or "vitiate" a
contract, making it unenforceable or voidable, meaning the contract is either invalid from the
beginning or can be canceled by one or both parties due to certain defects. These vitiating factors
undermine the validity of the agreement, either due to a lack of genuine consent or because of some
inherent flaw in the contract's formation. The main vitiating factors in contract law include:
1. Misrepresentation: Misrepresentation occurs when one party makes an untrue statement

of fact, either knowingly or without reasonable grounds for believing it to be true, with the
intention of inducing the other party to enter into the contract. If the misrepresentation is
material and leads the innocent party to agree to the contract, the contract may be voidable
at the innocent party's option. The "locus classicus" UK case for misrepresentation is Derry
v. Peek (1889). This case, which was decided by the House of Lords (now the Supreme
Court of the United Kingdom) in 1889, is a foundational authority on the law of
misrepresentation, specifically Fraudulent Misrepresentation. In the case, the directors of a
tramway company made statements in a prospectus regarding the company's financial
position and the authority they possessed to use steam power for their tramcars. Relying
on the information provided in the prospectus, the plaintiff purchased shares in the
company. However, it later turned out that the statements in the prospectus were
Page 16
misleading, as the company did not have the authority to use steam power for its tramcars.
The plaintiff sued the directors for misrepresentation, seeking to rescind the contract and
claim damages. The House of Lords held that for a statement to be considered a
misrepresentation, it must be:
A statement of fact (not mere opinion or future intention);
False or misleading; and
Induced the plaintiff to enter into the contract.
In this case, it was found that the statements made by the directors in the prospectus were
indeed misrepresentations as they were false and induced the plaintiff to buy the shares.
The court held the directors liable for misrepresentation, allowing the plaintiff to rescind
the contract and recover his investment in the shares.
2. Duress & Undue Influence: Duress involves one party coercing the other into entering the
contract through the use of threats, violence, undue influence, or other forms of pressure. If
a contract is entered into under duress, it may be voidable by the coerced party. Undue
influence occurs when one party exercises excessive control or influence over the other,
typically due to a fiduciary or confidential relationship. This can result in the weaker party
being coerced into entering a contract that benefits the dominant party unfairly. Contracts
influenced by undue influence may be voidable. In Barton V Armstrong (1973) 3 ALR 355,
a majority of the Privy Council overturned the decision of the NSW Court of Appeal and
substituted a declaration that the Deeds were executed by Barton under duress and were
void. The majority acknowledged that where death threats are made that are taken
seriously by the party subjected to the threats, it would be most unusual that there would
be any doubt that the threats operated to induce the threatened party to enter the contract,
thereby holding that:
a) Duress or undue influence is established against a party to a contract where the threats
made or pressure exerted against the other party provided the other party with ‘a’
reason for entering into the contract. It is not necessary that the threat be the
predominant reason for the other party entering the contract.
b) The onus is on the party making the threats or exerting the pressure to establish that
the threats or pressure did not contribute to the decision of the other party to enter the
contract.
There is also a plethora of case law regarding the two (2) distinct but similar factors. For
instance, for duress, in Atlas Express Ltd v. Kafco (Importers & Distributors) Ltd (1989),
a party was threatened with the breach of an existing contact if they did not sign the
contract. The court held that such amounted to illegitimate pressure and the contract was
voidable due to economic duress. For undue influence, in Royal Bank of Scotland plc v.
Etridge (No. 2) (2001) UKHL 44, there were eight (8) combined appeals heard by the
Page 17
House of Lords, all of which involve a wife who charged her interest in her home in favor of
a bank as collateral for her husband’s debts of his company. The court opined that to raise
the presumption of undue influence, it must be proven that there is a relationship of trust
and confidence and a transaction. As an equitable doctrine, the object of it is to ensure that
the influence of one person over another is not abused. By these margins, the court held
that the wife was subject to undue influence and, therefore, the contract was voidable.
3. Mistake: Mistake refers to errors made by one or both parties at the time of contract
formation, which may invalidate the contract if the parties did not actually agree on the
same terms. In Great Peace Shipping Ltd v. Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd (2003),
the parties made a mutual mistake about the port of refuge where a ship was to be towed.
The court held that the contract was void due to the mutual mistake about the essential
element of the contract. This is the precedent that also eliminated the vitiating factor of
mistake under the doctrines of equity. The mistake must be a fundamental and factual
mistake and go to the root of the contract. For example, A is selling a Kindle and B thinks he
is getting a mobile phone. Where the courts are unable to find an agreement and
performance of the contract would be impossible, the contract will be held void for mistake.
4. Illegality: Illegality refers to contracts that involve illegal activities or contravene public
policy, making them unenforceable in the courts. If a contract involves illegal activities or is
against public policy, it is considered void and unenforceable. Any agreement that
contravenes the law is not recognized by the courts. In Everet v Williams [1725] (also
known as the “Highwayman's Case”) dating back to 1725, regarding the enforceability of
contracts to commit crimes, the contract was to share the spoils of armed robbery, which
the court refused to uphold. This case propounded the doctrine of ex turpi causa non
oritur actio (Latin for "from a dishonorable cause an action does not arise"), which is a legal
doctrine which states that a plaintiff will be unable to pursue legal relief and damages if it
arises in connection with their own actions. A more recent precedent regarding illegality is
Patel v Mirza (2016), where the claimant sought recovery of money, which he had paid
under an illegal contract for insider trading. The court denied the claim, stating that the
contract was illegal, and it would not enforce an agreement that involved unlawful conduct.
5. Capacity: For a contract to be valid, all parties must have the legal capacity to enter into it.
Contracts made with minors, mentally incapacitated individuals, or those lacking
contractual capacity (e.g., intoxicated persons) may be voidable or unenforceable.
6. Non-disclosure: Failure to disclose important information that would affect the decision of
the other party can vitiate a contract, especially in cases where a duty to disclose exists.
7. Unconscionability: Contracts that are unconscionable, meaning they are so one-sided and
unfair that they shock the conscience, may be voided by the courts.
It is important to note that the remedies for vitiated contracts may vary depending on the
jurisdiction and the specific circumstances of each case. If you believe your contract has been
Page 18
affected by a vitiating factor, it's advisable to seek legal advice to understand your rights and
options.
WHAT ARE THE TYPES OF MISTAKES IN CONTRACT LAW?

In contract law, mistakes can have significant implications on the validity and enforceability of a
contract. There are three main types of mistakes that can occur:
1. Common Mistake: A common mistake occurs when both parties are mistaken about the
same fundamental aspect of the contract, which can either be with regard to the subject
matter (i.e., res extincta), ownership (i.e., res sua) or the quality of the subject matter. Unlike
a mutual mistake, a common mistake means that both parties share the same erroneous
belief. If a common mistake exists, the contract may be void from the outset because the
parties never genuinely agreed on the terms due to the shared misunderstanding.
2. Mutual Mistake: A mutual mistake can occur when both contracting parties have made
different mistakes and are at cross purposes. It can be said that both parties are laboring
under the same misconception regarding a key element of the contract. The mistake can
relate to either the terms or the subject matter of the contract. The contract riddled by
mutual mistake may be voidable by either party. For example, if both parties mistakenly
believe that a valuable painting is a replica and not the original, and they enter into a
contract based on that mistaken belief, the contract may be voidable.
3. Unilateral Mistake: A unilateral mistake occurs when only one party to the contract is
mistaken about a material term or aspect of the agreement and the other party is aware of
said mistake. In general, a unilateral mistake will not render a contract void or voidable
unless certain exceptional circumstances are present. For example, if one party makes a
typographical error in the contract and the other party is aware of the mistake but takes
advantage of it, the contract might be voidable due to the other party's misrepresentation
or unconscionable behavior.
It is essential to distinguish between mistakes of fact and mistakes of judgment. Mistakes of fact
concern the actual circumstances or characteristics of the subject matter of the contract, while
mistakes of judgment involve errors in predicting future events or market conditions. In general,
mistakes of judgment are not sufficient grounds to invalidate a contract. However, if a mistake of
judgment is so fundamental that it goes to the root of the agreement, it may be treated as a mistake
of fact and potentially render the contract voidable.
Page 19
WHAT ARE THE TYPES OF MISREPRESENTATIONS IN CONTRACT
LAW?
Misrepresentation can occur in different forms, and its effect on the contract can vary based on its
nature. Here are the four main types of misrepresentation, along with relevant UK case law
examples:
1. Fraudulent Misrepresentation: Fraudulent misrepresentation involves a deliberate and

knowingly false statement made with the intention to deceive the other party. It is a serious
offense in contract law and can lead to the contract being voided and potential additional
remedies such as damages. Case in point being Derry v. Peek (1889), where the House of
Lords held that with deceit, there needs to be fraud, but the tram company had not been
fraudulent because they reasonably expected to be allowed to use steam. Lord Herschell
said that a fraudulent misrepresentation must have been known to be untrue, or made
recklessly as to whether the statement was true or not.
2. Negligent Misrepresentation: Negligent misrepresentation occurs when a party makes a
false statement without exercising reasonable care or verifying the accuracy of the
information provided. The party making the statement may not intend to deceive, but their
lack of due diligence can lead to legal consequences. In Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd V Heller &
Partners (1964), the court ruled in favor of Hedley Byrne, finding that the bank had
negligently provided the credit reference, which led to financial losses for the advertising
agency. The case of Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v. Heller & Partners Ltd is crucial because it
established the principle of negligent misrepresentation, which allows a party to claim
damages for losses caused by a misrepresentation made with negligence but without
fraudulent intent.
3. Innocent Misrepresentation: Innocent misrepresentation happens when the party
making the false statement genuinely believes it to be true and has no reason to suspect that
it is false. Despite the lack of fraudulent intent, innocent misrepresentation can still render
a contract voidable. In With v. O'Flanagan (1936), a doctor mistakenly overstated the age
of a woman in a medical report. The woman relied on this information to enter into an
insurance contract. The court held that the misrepresentation was innocent, but it still
entitled the woman to void the contract.
DISCUSS THE COMPOSITIONS & JURISDICTIONS OF THE VARIOUS

COURTS IN SIERRA LEONE’S LEGAL SYSTEM
In Sierra Leone, there are five (5) courts that should be considered in discussing Sierra Leone’s
primary court system:
1. Local Courts: The Local Courts in Sierra Leone, which are predominantly in the provinces,
are governed by the Local Courts (2011), are established to comprise of a Chairman, Vice-
Page 20
Chairman, and any other position the Minister of Local Government deems as necessary to
establish. Every local court, pursuant to Section 15 of same, has the jurisdiction to hear &
determine criminal and civil matters that fall under customary law. Any individual
aggrieved with a decision of the Local Courts has a right of appeal to the District Appeal
Courts (otherwise called the Magistrate Court in the Western Area)
2. Magistrate Courts: The Magistrate Courts, otherwise referred to as the District Appeal
Courts in the provinces, are established pursuant to Section 4 of the Courts Act (1965).
The district appeal court comprises of a magistrate and two (2) assessors appointed by him
from a list of customary law experts in the district. The Magistrate Courts also have
appellate jurisdiction over the local courts. Pursuant to Section 6, which was repealed and
replaced in the Courts (Amendment) Act (1981), and Section 7 and Section 8 of same,
the magistrate courts have the criminal jurisdiction to hear and determine various criminal
and civil matters arising in the district in which the court is located. In addition, other
powers of the Magistrate Courts, according to the Criminal Procedure Act (1965), include
the authority to hold summary trials (Part II) and preliminary investigations (Part III).
3. High Court of Justice: The High Court is established pursuant to Section 120 (4) and
according to Section 131, it must comprise of the Chief Justice, nine (9) justices and other
such justices called upon by the Chief Justice by written request. It has general (Section
132) as well as supervisory (134) jurisdictions to hear and determine criminal & civil
matters as well as matters appealed from the Magistrate Courts. It is relevant to note that
Sierra Leone, much like the other courts in the superior court of judicature in Sierra Leone,
has but one (1) high court that carries several divisions therein, all of which are established
pursuant to Section 1 of Constitutional Instrument No. 4 of 2019, which include the
Commercial and Admiralty Division, Family & Probate Division, General Division, Criminal
Division, Sexual Offences Division, Land, Property & Environmental Division, etc.
4. Court of Appeal: The Court of Appeal is established pursuant to Section 120 (4) and
according to Section 128, it must comprise of the Chief Justice, seven (7) justices and other
such justices called upon by the Chief Justice by written request. It has, as its name implies,
appellate jurisdiction (Section 129) to hear and determine all matters appealed from the
High Court or the lower courts.
5. Supreme Court: The Supreme Court is established pursuant to Section 120 (4) and
according to Section 121, it must comprise of the Chief Justice, four (4) justices and other
such justices called upon by the Chief Justice by written request. It has appellate jurisdiction
(Section 122) as it is the country’s final court of appeal. It has supervisory jurisdiction
(Section 125) to hear and determine criminal & civil matters as well as matters appealed
from the lower courts. It also has original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine
any matter regarding the enforcement and interpretation of the constitution, pursuant to
Sections 124 and 127.
Page 21
By virtue of Section 135, judges are appointed by the Chief Justice from a list of qualified
individuals drawn up by the Judicial and Legal Service Commission. The qualifications of judges for
the superior court of judicature are ten (10) years for the High Court, fifteen (15) years for the High
Court of Appeal and twenty (20) years for the Supreme Court. However, one unifying criterion is
that every possible applicant must be a legal practitioner that has not been disbarred or whose
name has not been struck from the roll of court in Sierra Leone or any other analogous jurisdiction.
With regards to the tenure of judges, pursuant to Section 137, judges that upon attaining the young
age of sixty-five (65) shall retire, but they shall be given three (3) months to round off pending
judgments before them or any other procedural business commenced by him/her.
Following where a judge cannot carry out his function due to an infirmity of mind and body or
statement misconduct, at that instance, pursuant to Section 137, he will be suspended by the
president and the Judicial and Legal Service Commission shall recommend a course of action to the
president remove said judge from office, from which a tribunal will be formed on order of the
president to determine the removal of the judge. If the findings are negative, the judge will be
reinstated but if the findings are positive, the course of action suggested, followed by a 2/3 majority
vote for the action, the judge will effectively be removed form office. This varies slightly from the
removal of the Chief Justice; the president, in cojoinment with Cabinet, establish a tribunal to
determine the removal of the chief justice. Where the tribunal establishes that the Chief Justice
must be removed, accompanied with a 2/3 majority vote for that motion, he will effectively be
removed.
Pursuant to Section 138, the salaries, allowances, gratuities and pensions of Judges of the Superior
Court of Judicature must be determined by Parliament and it must not be varied to their
disadvantage. All such benefits are a charge on the state’s Consolidated fund and no other profit or
emolument must be accepted by any such judge. Section 120 (9) states that no Judge of the Superior
Court of Judicature shall be liable to any action or suit for any matter or thing done by him in the
performance of his judicial functions. In other words, judges carry immunity regarding any action
taken within their professional capacity.
WHAT IS THE BOHLAM PRINCIPLE?

The Bolam test, which is a legal principle used in medical negligence cases established in BOLAM
v. FRIERN HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (1957), can be simplified as follows:
The Bolam test is a standard used to determine whether a healthcare professional's actions were
negligent. It asks whether the healthcare professional's conduct was in line with what a reasonable
body of medical professionals would consider acceptable. In other words, if a responsible group of
doctors would have acted similarly in the same circumstances, the healthcare professional is likely
Page 22
not considered negligent, even if the outcome wasn't ideal. The test takes into account the practices
and opinions of the medical community to decide whether the care provided was reasonable or fell
below the expected standard.
WHAT ARE INCHOATE OFFENCES?

Inchoate offenses, also known as inchoate crimes or incomplete crimes, refer to criminal activities
that are undertaken with the intention of committing a more serious crime but do not reach the
final stage of the intended offense. These offenses involve actions or preparations leading up to the
commission of a crime but fall short of the actual completion of the intended criminal act. In other
words, the focus of inchoate offences is on the activity that takes place before the crime if commit
ted. Therefore, the primary offence is incomplete (i.e., inchoate).
Here are some examples of inchoate offenses:
6. Attempt: Attempted crimes occur when an individual takes substantial steps towards
committing a particular offense but ultimately fails to carry out the crime. The key elements
of an attempt include the intent to commit the crime and a substantial step towards its
commission. In HIGGINS v R (1801), the court stated that an attempt to commit a crime is itself a
crime.
7. Conspiracy: Conspiracy involves an agreement or plan between two or more people to
engage in criminal activity. The offense is committed as soon as the agreement is made,
regardless of whether the actual crime takes place or not. With the exception of corruption
offences, which are prosecuted under S. 128 (1) of the Anti-Corruption Act (No. 12 of
2008), conspiracy is a common law offence in Sierra Leone. It was defined as far back in the
case of MULCAHY v R (1868), where it was said that “…conspiracy consists not merely in the
intention of two or more but in the agreement of two or more persons to do an unlawful act
or to do a lawful act by unlawful means, so long as a design rests in the intention only, it is not
indictable. When two agree to carry it into effect, the very plot is an act in itself and the acts
of each of the parties, promise against promises, capable of being enforced if lawful, punishable
if for a criminal object or for the use of a criminal means”.
8. Incitement: Incitement occurs when one person encourages, requests, or commands
another individual to commit a crime. The crime is complete as soon as the request is made,
regardless of whether the person solicited actually goes on to commit the intended offense.
Holmes JA in the case of R v. NKOSIYANA (1966), P. 658 defines an inciter as, “One who
reaches and seeks to influence the mind of another to the commission of a crime, the
machination of criminal ingenuity being legion, the approach to the other’s mind may take
various forms such as inducement.”
It is important to note that inchoate offenses are treated seriously under the law, even though the
full intended crime may not have been committed. The rationale behind this is to prevent and deter
Page 23
criminal activities before they escalate into completed crimes. Penalties for inchoate offenses may
vary depending on the jurisdiction and the nature of the intended crime.
WHAT IS BURGLARY AND HOW IS IT DISTINCT FROM

HOUSEBREAKING?
Burglary and housebreaking are both terms related to unlawful entry into a building with the
intention to commit a crime, typically theft. While they share similarities, there are distinctions
between the two offenses:
Burglary:
Pursuant to Section 25(1) of the Larceny Act (1916), “Every person who in the night… Breaks
and enters the dwelling-house of another with intent to commit any felony therein or… Breaks
out of the dwelling-house of another, having… Entered the said dwelling-house with intent to
commit any felony therein; or… Committed any felony in that said dwelling-house; shall be
guilty of felony called burglary, and on conviction thereof liable to penal servitude for life.”
Burglary is a criminal offense that involves unlawfully breaking into and entering a dwelling with
the intent to commit a crime inside. The crime committed inside the premises does not have to be
theft; it could also be assault, vandalism, or any other criminal act.
Section 46 (1) of the Act explains what constitutes Night; which means “…the interval between
nine o’clock in the evening and six o’clock in the morning of the next succeeding day” and
subsection (2) of same explains what a dwelling House is; which is a place where a person sleeps.
Housebreaking:
Pursuant to Section 26(1) of the Larceny Act (1916), “Every person who… Breaks and enters the
dwelling-house, or any building within the cartilage thereof and occupied therewith, or any
school-house, shop, warehouse, counting-house, office, store, garage, pavilion, factory or
workshop, or any building belonging to His Majesty, or to any Government Department, or to
any municipal or other public authority, and commits any felony therein; or… Breaks out of
the same, having committed any felony therein”
In summary, the main distinction between burglary and housebreaking lies in the type of building
or structure targeted. Housebreaking refers to the unlawful entry into any building or structure
with the intent to commit a crime, whereas Burglary specifically refers to the unlawful entry into a
private dwelling with the same criminal intent. Another distinction lies in the time of committal.
For Housebreaking, it can happen at any hour, day or night, while for Burglary, it can only happen
at night, which spans from 9:00pm to 6:00am pursuant to the Larceny Act (1916).
Page 24
WHAT IS THE COMMON LAW?
The English common law is the customary law of England, yet it has become influential in the laws
of many other countries. In the Sierra Leone legal system, the common law was introduced to work
alongside customary law and Statute law. Section 74 of the Courts Act, 1965 provides specifically
that Common law enforced in England up to the 1st January 1880 shall always apply in Sierra
Leone. If there is nothing in the Constitution to cover a situation, and if no specific law has been
passed by parliament to address a situation, a court in a Commonwealth country may decide the
case depending upon English common law. In Sierra Leone, the common law which originated
centuries ago in Britain has benefitted the judicial system of Sierra Leone by enhancing
predictability and fairness in the system of justice. It further ensures that cases that raise similar
legal issues will be resolved in a similar fashion. The common law is also a valid source of law by
virtue of section 170(1)(e) of the Sierra Leone constitution (Act No. 6 of 1991). It gained legal
applicability in Sierra Leone pursuant to Section (74) of the Courts Act (1965) and Section 170 (2)
of the 1991 Constitution.
WHAT CONSTITUTES A VALID CONTRACT BY LAW?

A valid contract is a legally enforceable agreement between two or more parties that creates certain
rights and obligations for those involved. For a contract to be considered valid, it must meet certain
essential elements. These elements may vary based on the jurisdiction and local laws, but generally
include:
1. Offer and Acceptance: There must be a clear and definite offer made by one party (which
is defined as an expression of willingness, in Storer v Manchester City Council and an
unequivocal acceptance of that offer by the other party (i.e., the mirror image rule). Both
the offer and acceptance must be communicated between the parties. In other words, there
must be a meeting of the minds (i.e., consensus ad idem).
2. Legal Capacity: Each party entering into the contract must have the legal capacity to do so.
This means they must be of legal age and mentally competent.
3. Consideration: There must be something of value (e.g., money, goods, services) exchanged
between the parties. Consideration is what each party gives or promises to give in return
for what they receive under the contract. The most recognized definition was given in the
case of Currie v Misa.
4. Legal Purpose: The purpose and subject matter of the contract must not violate any laws
or public policy. Contracts that involve illegal activities are not considered valid. The case of
Everet v Williams aforementioned is instructive on this.
5. Intention to create Legal Relations: Every valid contract requires an intention on the part
of the parties that the agreement is legally binding. In the absence of such an intention, a
contract will not be enforceable. The ability to distinguish between social/domestic and
commercial agreements is paramount. In the case Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company
Page 25
(1893), the court applied the "objective test" and asked whether the reasonable bystander,
after taking into account all the circumstances of the case, thinks that the parties intended
to be bound. Since the advertisement (pictured) stated that the company had "deposited
£1,000 in the Alliance Bank to show sincerity in the matter", the court held that any objective
bystander who read this would presume an intention to contract.
6. Certainty: The terms of the contract must be clear and specific enough so that the parties
involved can understand their rights and obligations. In Durham Tees Valley Airport Ltd
v Bmibaby Ltd (2010), the court opined that for a contract to be enforceable the court has
to be able to say whether any particular standard of performance is or is not a breach of
contract and, if a breach exists, to determine what measure of damages is appropriate. It
was held that
7. Writing (in some cases): While many contracts can be verbal and still be valid, certain
types of contracts, such as real estate transactions or contracts that involve a long-term
commitment, may need to be in writing to be enforceable. For instance, Section 4 of the
Statute of Frauds Act (1677) provides that any agreement regarding real property must be
captured in writing.
WHAT IS ACTUS REUS AND WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT CLASSES OF

ACTUS REUS?
"Actus reus" is a Latin term in criminal law that refers to the physical element or action of a crime.
It encompasses various forms of conduct that can be considered criminal acts. Here are some
different forms of actus reus:
1. Overt Acts: These are actions that are directly performed by an individual, such as theft,
assault, or driving under the influence.
2. Failure to Act (Omission): In some cases, a person can be held criminally liable for failing
to act when they have a legal duty to do so. For example, a parent failing to provide necessary
care to their child or a lifeguard not rescuing a drowning person could be considered
criminal omissions.
3. Possession: Possessing illegal drugs, stolen property, or weapons can constitute actus reus
if it is intentional and under the person's control.
4. Conduct Leading to a Result: Some crimes require that a specific result occurs as a direct
consequence of the defendant's actions. For instance, causing death or injury through
reckless driving could be an actus reus that leads to charges like manslaughter.
5. Voluntary Acts: Crimes typically require that the action was undertaken voluntarily,
meaning the individual made a conscious choice to commit the act. Involuntary actions, such
as those done while sleepwalking or due to a medical condition, might not satisfy the actus
reus requirement.
Page 26
6. Continuous Acts: Some crimes involve ongoing actions, such as kidnapping or false
imprisonment. The actus reus continues until the person is released or the situation
changes.
7. State of Affairs: Certain crimes involve a state of affairs that is criminal in itself, such as
bigamy (being married to two people simultaneously) or owning stolen property.
It's important to note that the specific elements of actus reus can vary based on the jurisdiction
and the particular crime being considered. Additionally, for a person to be found guilty of a crime,
both the actus reus (the physical act) and the mens rea (the mental state or intent) must often be
proven by the prosecution.
WHAT IS MENS REA AND WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT CLASSES OF

MENS REA?
"Mens rea" is a Latin term in criminal law that refers to the mental element or intent behind a
criminal act. It encompasses various levels of culpability that help define the state of mind of the
person committing the crime. Here are some different forms of mens rea:
1. Intention (Direct Intent): This is the highest level of mens rea. It involves a deliberate and
conscious decision to achieve a specific result. The individual's aim is to bring about the
outcome of their actions. For example, intentionally causing harm to another person.
2. Recklessness: Recklessness occurs when a person is aware of a substantial and
unjustifiable risk associated with their actions, and they proceed despite knowing the risk.
It's a lower level of intent than direct intent. An example could be firing a gun into a crowd
without a specific target, knowing there's a risk of injuring someone.
3. Negligence: Negligence involves a failure to exercise reasonable care or caution that a
reasonable person would have exercised in a similar situation. While not an intentional act,
negligence can lead to criminal liability if it causes harm. For example, leaving a dangerous
object in a public place without taking precautions.
4. Strict Liability Offenses: These are crimes that don't require a mens rea element. Instead,
the prosecution only needs to prove that the defendant committed the prohibited act. These
offenses are typically minor or regulatory in nature, such as certain traffic violations.
The specific forms of mens rea and their definitions can vary based on the jurisdiction and the
particular crime in question. Establishing the appropriate mens rea is crucial in determining the
level of criminal intent and potential liability for a particular offense.
Page 27
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CHAPTERS 3 & 4 REGARDING
JUSTICIABILITY?
Chapters 2 & 3 of the Constitution of Sierra Leone are parts that enunciate founding principles of
Sierra Leone law. The former provides all fundamental principles of state policy, which are political,
social, economic, educational, foreign policy objectives to name a few, while the latter provides for
the recognition and protection of the individual’s fundamental human rights. A quintessential
distinction between these chapters is their justiciability clauses. For Chapter 2, pursuant to Section
14, none of the sections confer legal rights to any individual and are thereby not enforceable in any
court of law. However, this does not take from the fact that these principles are fundamental for the
governance of the state and the creation of laws in Sierra Leone. For Chapter 3, pursuant to Section
28, in an event where any of the human rights of an individual provided for in Sections 16-27 are
violated, nothing precludes him/her from bringing an action for the realization of said rights. It is
quintessential to note that such actions can only be brought before the Supreme Court, as per
Section 124(1&2), as they fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
WHAT ARE THE KINDS OF CONTRACTS?

In contract law, contracts can be classified into various types based on their formation,
enforceability, and performance. Here are some of the common kinds of contracts:
1. Express Contract: An express contract is one where the parties explicitly state the terms
and conditions of the agreement, either orally or in writing. The terms are expressly
communicated and agreed upon by the parties.
2. Implied Contract: An implied contract is one where the terms and obligations are not
explicitly stated, but they are inferred from the conduct or behavior of the parties involved.
The existence of the contract is implied by the circumstances.
3. Unilateral Contract: A unilateral contract is a one-sided contract where one party makes a
promise to do something in exchange for the other party's performance of a specific act. The
contract is formed when the act is performed.
4. Bilateral Contract: A bilateral contract is a two-sided contract where both parties make
promises to perform certain acts or provide something of value to each other. This is the
most common type of contract.
5. Formal Contract: A formal contract is a contract that must be in a specific form, such as a
written document or under seal, to be legally enforceable.
6. Simple Contract: A simple contract is a contract that does not require any specific form and
can be either oral or written. Most contracts fall under this category.
7. Executed Contract: An executed contract is a contract in which both parties have fulfilled
their obligations, and the terms have been fully performed.
Page 28
8. Executory Contract: An executory contract is a contract in which one or both parties have
not yet completed their obligations, and some performance is still outstanding.
9. Void Contract: A void contract is a contract that is not legally binding from the beginning
(i.e., ab initio), often because it is prohibited by law or involves illegal activities.
10. Voidable Contract: A voidable contract is a contract that is valid and enforceable unless
one of the parties chooses to void or cancel the contract due to certain legal reasons, such
as misrepresentation, fraud, duress, or lack of capacity.
11. Unenforceable Contract: An unenforceable contract is a contract that is valid, but due to
certain legal technicalities or deficiencies, a court may not enforce it.
WHAT IS THE CONCEPT OF PRIVITY OF CONTRACT?

The concept of "privity of contract" refers to the principle that only the parties who are directly
involved in a contract have rights and obligations under that contract. In other words, third parties
who are not parties to the original contract generally cannot enforce the terms of the contract or
be held liable for its performance. Historically, the doctrine of privity of contract was strictly
applied, which meant that only the parties who had entered into the contract could sue each other
for breach of contract or seek performance. This created challenges when a contract was intended
to benefit a third party, such as in the case of a contract for the benefit of a family member or a
beneficiary under a will. A significant case that illustrates the concept of privity of contract in the
United Kingdom is Tweddle v. Atkinson (1861), where the fathers of the bride and groom had
entered into an agreement to pay a sum of money to the groom. However, the agreement was not
made in writing. When the fathers failed to fulfill their promise after the wedding, the groom sought
to enforce the contract. The court held that the groom could not enforce the agreement because he
was not a party to the contract, and the doctrine of privity of contract prevented him from claiming
any rights under it.
STATE AND EXPLAIN ANY FIVE (5) MAXIMS OF EQUITY.

1. Equity follows the law:
Explanation: This maxim means that equity will not overrule the common law. Instead, it will act
in harmony with it, filling in gaps or providing remedies where common law falls short. In
Stannard v. Fisons Ltd [1967], the Court of Appeal emphasized that equity follows the law, and it
cannot interfere with the legal rights of parties as established by common law.
2. Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy:
Explanation: This maxim emphasizes that if a person has suffered a wrong and there is no adequate
remedy available in common law, equity will step in to provide relief. In Ashby v. White [1703],
Holt CJ, in his dissenting opinion, established that if the law gives a man a right, he must also have
Page 29
the means to vindicate and maintain it, and if he is injured in the enjoyment of it, a remedy to
protect said right.
3. He who seeks equity must do equity/He who comes to equity must come with clean
hands:
Explanation: This maxim suggests that if a party seeks equitable relief from the court, they must
come with "clean hands" and act fairly and equitably themselves. In Dering v. Earl of Winchelsea
(1787), the court held that the claimant could not seek equitable remedies due to their own
wrongdoing. In other words, no claimant will receive the favor or support of the courts where
he/she has acted unfairly. In Cross v. Cross (1893), Wood J stated that “…he who comes to equity
must come with clean hands and any conduct of the plaintiff, which would make a grant of specific
performance inequitable, can prove a bar.”
4. Equity imputes an intention to fulfill an obligation:
Explanation: This maxim means that equity presumes that parties intend to fulfill their obligations
under a contract or agreement. In Strong v. Bird (1874), the court held that a voluntary settlement
of property would be presumed to be intended to fulfill the donor's moral obligation to provide for
the donee.
5. Where the equities are equal, the first in time shall prevail:
Explanation: This maxim indicates that where there is a conflict between a number of equitable
interests, there will be priority awarded according to time of creation. In other words, the equitable
interest first created shall prevail over all the other equitable interests. In Rice v. Rice (1853), the
court stated that with competing equitable interests, the first thing to be considered is whether the
equities are in fact equal with regards to each one’s nature and condition, circumstances of the
matter in question and the conduct of each party. If after such an assessment it is determined that
the equities are the same, the priority rule (i.e., first-in-time) will be adopted to reach a decision.
6. Equity regards substance/intent rather than form:
Explanation: This maxim signifies that equity looks at the underlying substance, essence and intent
of a transaction rather than merely focusing on its formalities. In Paul v. Constance [1977], the
court disregarded the formalities of the trust and considered the true intentions (in this case, his
informal words and conduct) of the defendant to ascertain the validity of the gift.
7. Where there is equal equity, the law must prevail:
Explanation: This maxim states that if both parties have equal equitable rights, the legal rights will
be upheld. In Cave v. Cave (1880), the court applied this maxim where two parties had competing
equitable and legal interests in a piece of land, and the court held that the legal mortgage prevailed
Page 30
over the equitable mortgage as where conscience and necessity allow it, they accord superior force
& strength to a legal interest over any equitable one.
8. Equity acts in personam:
Explanation: This maxim means that equity acts directly against the person rather than merely
dealing with the property. Equitable remedies are typically binding on specific individuals and
require their compliance. In Ewing v. Orr Ewing [1884], the Supreme Court upheld the principle
of acting in personam, in that the administration of the estate of an Englishman, who passed
domiciled in Scotland, could be begun in England, as equity acts in personam.
9. Delay defeats equity:
Explanation: This maxim suggests that unreasonable delay in seeking equitable relief may bar a
party from obtaining such relief. In Nelson v. Rye [1996], the court refused to grant the plaintiff's
claim for earnings wrongfully withheld by his manager due to an unreasonable delay [in this case,
it was six (6) years] in bringing the action, which prejudiced the defendant.
10. Equity regards as done that which ought to have been done:
Explanation: This maxim states that in certain situations, a court of equity will treat a certain action
or obligation as if it has been completed, even if it hasn't actually been carried out, to achieve a fair
and just outcome. In other words, when someone has a legal or moral duty to perform a specific
action or fulfill an obligation, but they fail to do so, a court of equity may step in and treat the action
as if it had been completed. This exists mainly to ensure fairness and prevent unjust advantages for
those who fail to meet their obligations. In Walsh v. Lonsdale (1882), the court famously held that
an agreement for a lease is just as good or could be treated as a lease.
EXPLAIN HOW ONE CAN DISCHARGE A CONTRACT.

In English contract law, the concept of "discharge of contract" refers to the termination or ending
of contractual obligations and rights between the parties involved. Discharge occurs when the
parties are released from their respective duties and liabilities under the contract, indicating that
their obligations have been fulfilled or that the contract is no longer enforceable. There are several
ways in which a contract can be discharged in English contract law, and these include:
1. Performance: When both parties fulfill their contractual obligations according to the
agreed-upon terms, the contract is discharged by performance. Each party has done what
they were required to do under the contract.
2. Agreement: The parties may mutually agree to terminate the contract before its
performance is complete. This is known as discharge by agreement or mutual rescission.
Page 31
3. Breach of Contract: If one party fails to perform their obligations as specified in the
contract, it may lead to a breach of contract. The non-breaching party can choose to
discharge the contract and seek remedies for the breach.
4. Frustration: Frustration occurs when an unforeseen event or circumstance arises after the
formation of the contract, making it impossible to perform the contract as intended. In such
cases, the contract may be discharged due to frustration.
5. Operation of Law: Certain events or changes in the law may lead to the automatic discharge
of a contract by operation of law. For example, a contract may become void if its subject
matter becomes illegal after the contract's formation.
Here are some relevant cases that illustrate the concept of discharge of contract in English contract
law:
1. Planche v. Colburn (1831):
In this case, the parties entered into a contract for the publication of a literary work. However,
before the work could be completed, the author passed away. The court held that the contract was
discharged due to the death of the author, as it became impossible to perform the contract as
intended.
2. Hochster v. De La Tour (1853):
In this case, the defendant, De La Tour, hired the plaintiff, Hochster, as a tour guide for a specific
period. However, before the tour began, De La Tour canceled the engagement. The court held that
Hochster could sue for damages for the breach, even though the tour had not yet commenced, as
De La Tour repudiated the contract before its performance date.
3. Taylor v. Caldwell (1863):
In this case, the parties had entered into a contract for the hire of a music hall for a series of
concerts. Before the first concert took place, the music hall was destroyed by fire. The court held
that the contract was discharged by frustration because the destruction of the music hall made it
impossible to perform the contract as intended.
DEFINE CONSIDERATION.
In English contract law, consideration is a crucial element in the formation of a valid contract. It
refers to something of value (such as money, goods, services, or a promise) that is given by one
party to another in exchange for their promise or performance. For a contract to be legally binding,
there must be mutual consideration - each party must give something of value, and this mutual
exchange distinguishes a contract from a gift or a gratuitous promise.
Page 32
One of the landmark cases that illustrate the concept of consideration in UK contract law is Currie
v. Misa (1875). In this case, the court provided a comprehensive definition of consideration. Lord
Justice Lush defined consideration as follows: "A valuable consideration, in the sense of the law,
may consist either in some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to the one party, or some
forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other."
In the case, it was held that consideration does not necessarily have to involve a monetary value,
but it can also be in the form of benefits, rights, forbearance, or the assumption of responsibilities.
The principle laid down in Currie v. Misa is still widely accepted and applied in UK contract law
today. It establishes that consideration can be anything that holds value in the eyes of the law and
is exchanged between the parties to create a legally binding contract.
WHAT PROVISIONS IN THE 1991 CONSTITUTION UPHOLD THE

PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE?
The principles of natural justice, also known as procedural fairness, can be simplified as follows:
1. Audi Alteram Partem(i.e., Latin for Hear the other side): This principle ensures that
individuals involved in a decision-making process have the opportunity to present their
side of the story and provide relevant information before a decision is made that could
affect them. In other words, everyone should have a chance to explain their perspective
and respond to any allegations or concerns. This is upheld in Section 23(1), which grants
every citizen the right to a fair trial.
2. Nemo Judex In Cause Sua (i.e., Latin for One cannot be a judge in his own cause): This
principle mandates that decisions should be made by impartial and unbiased decision-
makers. No one involved in the decision-making process should have any personal or
financial interest in the outcome that could affect their judgment. The decision-maker
should approach the matter with an open mind and without any preconceived notions.
This is upheld in Section 120(14), which states that no judge of the superior court of
judicature should sit on a matter that he had previously decided prior to the appeal.
WHAT IS THE LARCENY ACT (1916) AND WHERE CAN IT BE

LOCATED IN THE LAWS OF SIERRA LEONE?
The Larceny Act 1916 is an Act of Parliament from the United Kingdom that deals with the crime
of larceny, which is essentially theft or stealing. It was enacted to consolidate and clarify various
provisions related to theft and larceny that were previously scattered across multiple statutes. The
Act covers offenses related to theft, receiving stolen goods, and other related matters. It defines the
different types of theft and provides guidelines on the penalties for those found guilty of such
offenses. In the context of Sierra Leone, the Larceny Act (1916) gained legal efficacy therein
pursuant to CAP 27 of the Laws of Sierra Leone (1960), Imperial Statutes (Criminal Law)
Page 33
Adoption, which is a statute that gave way to criminal statutes in the UK to be adopted in Sierra
Leone.
WHAT IS THE GENERAL RULE REGARDING ACCEPTANCE?

The general rule of acceptance in contract law is that acceptance must be communicated to the
offeror. This means that for a contract to be formed, the offeree (the person receiving the offer)
must clearly and unambiguously communicate their acceptance of the offer to the offeror (the
person making the offer). The principle that acceptance must be communicated was established in
the landmark case of Adams v. Lindsell (1818). In this case, the court held that a contract was
formed when the letter of acceptance was posted by the offeree, rather than when it was received
by the offeror. This established the "postal rule" in contract law, which states that acceptance is
effective upon posting, not upon actual receipt by the offeror. Aside from the postal rule, other
methods of communication for acceptance can be used as long as they are explicitly or implicitly
accepted by the offeror. Common methods include phone calls, emails, face-to-face conversations,
or other written forms of communication.
WHAT IS CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE?

Circumstantial evidence, also known as indirect evidence, is evidence that does not directly prove
a fact but relies on inference and the logical connection between the evidence and the fact in
question. Unlike direct evidence, which directly establishes a fact, circumstantial evidence requires
reasoning and interpretation to draw conclusions. In a legal context, circumstantial evidence can
be used to establish guilt or innocence in a case. While direct evidence, such as an eyewitness
account or a video recording of a crime, can be powerful, cases often rely on circumstantial
evidence due to the nature of the events or the lack of direct witnesses or conclusive proof.
Here's an example to illustrate circumstantial evidence:
Scenario: A burglary has taken place in a house, and a valuable item is missing.
Direct Evidence: A security camera captured footage of a masked person breaking into the house
and taking the valuable item.
Circumstantial Evidence: The police find a set of footprints leading from the back door of the house
to a nearby toolshed. Inside the toolshed, they find a mask similar to the one worn by the person
in the security footage, along with a crowbar used to break into the house. Additionally, they
discover that the suspect has a history of burglary.
While the direct evidence from the security camera clearly identifies the person committing the
crime, the circumstantial evidence, such as the footprints, the mask, the crowbar, and the suspect's
criminal history, helps establish a chain of events and strengthens the case against the suspect.
However, it's important to note that the presence of circumstantial evidence does not guarantee
Page 34
guilt, and its reliability depends on the logical inferences made from the evidence presented in
court.
WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THE JUDICATURE ACTS OF 1873 &

1875?
The Judicature Acts of 1873 and 1875 were significant pieces of legislation in the United Kingdom
that reformed the structure and organization of the court system. Prior to these Acts, the English
court system was divided into separate courts of law and equity, each with its distinct procedures,
principles, and remedies. The purpose of the Judicature Acts was to fuse/merge the courts of law
and equity into a single, unified system, aiming for a more efficient and accessible justice system,
following their legal rivalry, as evident in the Earl of Oxford’s Case (1616). Here are the key points
and features of the Judicature Acts of 1873 and 1875:
1. Fusion of Courts: The Acts merged the common law courts (such as the Court of Queen's
Bench, Court of Common Pleas, and Exchequer) with the Court of Chancery, creating a new
unified Supreme Court of Judicature.
2. Common Law and Equity: The separation between common law and equity, which often
led to conflicting decisions and delays in justice, was abolished. The new Supreme Court
was empowered to apply both common law and equitable principles and remedies in a
single set of proceedings.
3. One Set of Rules: The Acts provided for a single set of procedural rules that applied across
the entire court system. This helped streamline the legal process and reduced the
complexity of the legal system.
4. High Court of Justice: The new Supreme Court of Judicature was established, consisting of
several divisions, including the High Court of Justice. The High Court had jurisdiction over
both legal and equitable matters and was divided into different divisions, such as the
Chancery Division, Queen's Bench Division, and Common Pleas Division.
5. Court of Appeal: The Acts created the Court of Appeal, which served as the highest
appellate court in the country for civil cases. It heard appeals from the decisions of the High
Court and other lower courts.
6. Abolition of Certain Courts: The Judicature Acts abolished several older courts that were
no longer necessary due to the reorganization. This included the Court of Chancery and the
various common law courts that were merged into the new system.
The Judicature Acts of 1873 and 1875 were significant milestones in the modernization of the
English legal system. By merging the courts of law and equity, they brought greater coherence and
consistency to the administration of justice and paved the way for a more effective and accessible
court system that continues to function in the United Kingdom today.
Page 35
WHAT IS THE PRINCIPLE IN DONOGHUE v. STEVENSON?
The principle established in the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) is that of "duty of care" in
the law of negligence. The case of Donoghue v. Stevenson was heard in the House of Lords (now the
Supreme Court of the United Kingdom) in 1932. The plaintiff, Mrs. Donoghue, consumed a bottle
of ginger beer that had been manufactured by the defendant, Mr. Stevenson. Inside the bottle, which
Mrs. Donoghue drank from an opaque container, she found a decomposed snail. As a result, she
suffered shock and gastroenteritis. Mrs. Donoghue sued the manufacturer, Mr. Stevenson, for
damages due to the harm she suffered from consuming the contaminated ginger beer. The key legal
question before the court was whether Mr. Stevenson owed a duty of care to Mrs. Donoghue, as she
had not directly purchased the ginger beer from him but from a shop.
The House of Lords, in a famous judgment delivered by Lord Atkin, established the principle that a
person owes a duty of care to their "neighbor." The term "neighbor" was defined broadly to include
anyone who could reasonably be foreseen as being affected by one's actions. This idea of "neighbor"
extended the scope of potential liability in negligence cases.
Lord Atkin's judgment articulated the now-famous "neighbor principle":
"The rule that you are to love your neighbor becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbor; and
the lawyer's question, 'Who is my neighbor?' receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable
care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your
neighbor."
This principle became the foundation of modern negligence law. It established that a person must
exercise reasonable care not to cause harm to others who could be reasonably foreseen as being
affected by their actions or omissions.
WHAT IS MALICE AFORETHOUGHT IN CRIMINAL LAW?

In criminal law, "malice aforethought" is a legal term used to describe a mental state or intent in
certain homicide offenses. It is a crucial element in establishing the most serious form of murder,
commonly referred to as "first-degree murder" in some jurisdictions. The concept of malice
aforethought varies somewhat from one legal system to another, but it generally involves the
following key elements:
1. Intent to Kill: Malice aforethought typically involves the specific intent to cause the death
of another person. The perpetrator must have a deliberate and premeditated purpose to
take the life of the victim.
2. Premeditation: This element implies that the act was planned or considered before it was
carried out. It shows that the offender had time to reflect on their actions and made a
conscious decision to commit the crime.
Page 36
3. Deliberation: Malice aforethought requires a degree of careful thought and consideration
of the consequences of one's actions. It goes beyond a sudden impulse or heat of the
moment.
It's important to note that different jurisdictions may have varying definitions and classifications
of murder based on the presence or absence of malice aforethought. Some legal systems use
different degrees of murder, such as first-degree murder (with malice aforethought), second-
degree murder (intentional killing without premeditation), and manslaughter (unintentional
killing or killing in the heat of passion).
WHAT IS VICARIOUS LIABILITY?

Vicarious liability is a legal doctrine that holds one party liable for the actions or omissions of
another party. In the context of employment relationships, it means that an employer can be held
responsible for the wrongful acts or negligence committed by their employees while performing
their duties within the scope of their employment. The key element in establishing vicarious
liability is the existence of an employer-employee relationship, where the employee is acting on
behalf of the employer and carrying out their duties. It is imperative to note that vicarious liability
is not a tort. It is a principle that one person is liable for the torts of another.
One explanation for this phenomenon can be seen in Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam [2002].
The case concerned a solicitor’s firm vicarious liability for the acts of one of its partners. The facts
are unimportant - but of interest is the obiter of Lord Nicholls, at p. 21:
“The underlying legal policy is based on the recognition that carrying on a business enterprise
necessarily involves risk to others. It involves the risk that others will be harmed by wrongful acts
committed by the agents through whom the business is carried on. When those risks ripen into loss,
it is just that the business should be responsible for compensating the person who has been
wronged.”
What Lord Nicholls is essentially pointing out is that just as an employer gladly reaps the benefits
of their employees’ actions, they must also be prepared to bear the costs of those employees’
misdeeds. With the theoretical basis for vicarious liability laid out, we can now examine its
mechanics.
In Beard v London General Omnibus Co [1900], which is a case that deals with the vicarious
liability of an employer for his employee’s negligence when it is caused outside the scope of
employment, the conductor of a bus took it upon himself to turn the bus around at the terminus, in
the absence of the driver. In doing so, he negligently injured the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued for
damages against the employers of the bus conductor. The issue raised was whether the bus
company liable for the injury sustained by the plaintiff due to the employee’s negligence. The
employers were found not to be liable for the conductor’s actions because his job was not to drive
the bus but rather to collect fares, and the act in question fell completely outside the scope of his
Page 37
employment. The task of driving was performed without authorization and it went beyond the
ambit of the employer’s vicarious liability. Because it was not a part of the conductor’s duty to drive
the omnibus, he was doing something outside the scope of what he was employed to do. And hence,
it couldn’t be said negligence in the course of his employment. It was established that a master will
not be held vicariously liable for a tort committed by one of his servants unless the plaintiff can
demonstrate that the tort was committed while the servant was performing duties related to his
employment. That is, it was committed during the course of his employment. Hence, the burden of
proof is on the plaintiff.
WHAT ARE THE THREE CERTAINTIES IN TRUST LAW?

The "Three Certainties" refer to the essential requirements that must be satisfied to create a valid
trust. The case that established the Three Certainties in trust law is Knight v. Knight (1840). In
Knight v. Knight, Lord Langdale, the Master of the Rolls, outlined the requirements that must be
satisfied for a trust to be valid. He stated that there must be:
1. Certainty of Intention:
This certainty requires that the settlor (the person creating the trust) must have a clear and
unequivocal intention to create a trust. It means that the settlor must express an intention to
separate the legal ownership of the trust property from the beneficial ownership, with the trustee
holding the property for the benefit of the beneficiaries. In Knight v. Knight (1840) - In this case,
it was held that for a trust to be valid, there must be an intention on the part of the settlor to create
a trust that is binding in law. In Paul v. Constance (1977), the court emphasized that certainty of
intention could be inferred from the conduct and surrounding circumstances of the parties. It
means that the court may look beyond the words used and examine the actions and behavior of the
parties involved to ascertain whether there was an intention to create a trust.
2. Certainty of Subject Matter:
This certainty demands that the trust property or assets must be clearly identifiable and described.
The assets placed into the trust must be ascertainable so that the court or trustee can determine
what is part of the trust fund and what is not. In Palmer v. Simmonds (1854), the court held that
the subject matter of the trust must be sufficiently clear for the trust to be valid. Vague or uncertain
assets may not be suitable for the creation of a trust.
3. Certainty of Objects:
This certainty necessitates that the beneficiaries of the trust must be clearly identified or
ascertainable. The beneficiaries can be individuals, groups of people, or charitable organizations.
The trust must clearly define who can benefit from the trust, and the beneficiaries should not be
too uncertain or vague. In the landmark case of Re Gulbenkian’s Settlements** (1970), the House
Page 38
of Lords set out the test for certainty of objects in discretionary trusts. Lord Wilberforce stated that
for a discretionary trust to be valid, the class of beneficiaries must be described with sufficient
certainty, so the trustees can determine whether any given individual is a member of that class or
not.
Failure to satisfy any of these three certainties may lead to the trust being deemed invalid or
unenforceable in a court of law. It is crucial to meet these requirements to establish a legally binding
trust.
WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NEGLIGENCE AND

RECKLESSNESS IN LAW?
In UK law, both recklessness and negligence are legal concepts that pertain to the level of culpability
or fault in various situations, particularly in the context of criminal and civil law. While they both
involve a failure to meet a certain standard of care, they have distinct characteristics:
Negligence: This refers to a failure to exercise reasonable care that a person would normally
exercise in a similar situation. It involves a breach of a duty of care owed to another person that
results in harm or damage. In order to establish negligence, the following elements are generally
required:
1. Duty of Care: The defendant must have owed a duty of care to the plaintiff (the injured
party). This duty of care is a legal obligation to act reasonably and avoid causing foreseeable
harm to others.
2. Breach of Duty: The defendant must have breached that duty of care by failing to act as a
reasonable person would have acted in the same circumstances.
3. Causation: The defendant's breach of duty must have directly caused the harm or damage
suffered by the plaintiff.
4. Foreseeability: The harm or damage caused by the defendant's breach of duty must have
been reasonably foreseeable at the time of the breach.
Recklessness: This involves a higher degree of culpability than negligence. It occurs when a person
consciously takes an unjustifiable risk that they are aware of, and they proceed with their actions
despite the risk. Recklessness can be categorized into two main types:
1. Subjective Recklessness: This occurs when a person realizes the risk involved in their
actions but decides to proceed regardless. They have subjective awareness of the risk.
2. Objective Recklessness: This type of recklessness applies when a reasonable person
would have recognized the risk in the defendant's actions, even if the defendant themselves
did not realize it.
Page 39
In UK law, recklessness can lead to criminal liability in certain situations, especially in offenses
where recklessness is specified as an element of the offense. For example, a person might be
charged with reckless endangerment if their actions show a conscious disregard for the safety of
others. In contrast, negligence is often more commonly associated with civil cases, where one party
sues another for compensation due to harm or loss caused by the defendant's failure to meet the
required standard of care. In summary, negligence involves a failure to meet the standard of care
owed to another person, resulting in harm, while recklessness involves consciously taking
unjustifiable risks despite being aware of the potential consequences. Both concepts play crucial
roles in determining liability and accountability in legal cases within the UK legal system.
WHAT ARE HUMAN RIGHTS AND WHICH INSTRUMENT ENSURES

THEM IN SIERRA LEONE?
Human rights are fundamental entitlements and protections that belong to every individual,
irrespective of their race, nationality, gender, religion, or any other characteristic. These rights are
often considered universal, inalienable, and inherent to human dignity. They encompass a wide
range of freedoms, protections, and opportunities to ensure the well-being and equality of all
people. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted by the United Nations in
1948, outlines a comprehensive list of human rights, including civil, political, economic, social, and
cultural rights. They are designed to ensure dignity, equality, and freedom for everyone. Human
rights encompass a wide range of principles and values, including:
1. Section 16 (Right to Life): Every person has the inherent right to life and should not be
arbitrarily deprived of it.
2. Section 20 (Freedom from Torture and Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment): No
one should be subjected to torture or any form of degrading treatment or punishment.
3. Section 22 (Right to Privacy): Individuals have the right to privacy in their personal and
family life, communications, and personal data and must not be subjected to unlawful
searches & seizures.
4. Section 23 (Right to Fair Trial): Individuals are entitled to a fair and public trial by an
independent and impartial tribunal.
5. Section 24 (Freedom of Conscience): Individuals have the right to exercise their thoughts
and opinions and practice their religion or belief without interference.
6. Section 25 (Freedom of Expression): Individuals have the right to express their thoughts,
opinions, and ideas without fear of censorship or reprisals.
7. Section 27 (Right to Equality and Non-Discrimination): Everyone is entitled to equal
treatment and protection under the law, regardless of their background. Discrimination
based on race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and other factors is prohibited.
Page 40
WHAT ARE THE KINDS OF TERMS IN A CONTRACT?
In a contract, the terms can be categorized into different types based on their nature, specificity,
and significance. Each contract may have a combination of these types of terms, depending on the
specific agreement and the parties' intentions. It is essential for parties to carefully consider and
negotiate the terms to ensure clarity, fairness, and mutual understanding. Here are the common
types of terms found in a contract:
1. Express terms: These are terms that are explicitly stated and agreed upon by the parties
either in writing or verbally. Express terms can be found in the main body of the contract or
in attached schedules, annexes, or addendums.
2. Implied terms: Implied terms are not expressly stated in the contract, but they are
automatically incorporated into the agreement based on law, custom, or the intentions of
the parties. Implied terms can arise from the parties' conduct or be implied by statute or
common law.
3. Conditions: Conditions are essential terms that are of such importance that if breached,
they could allow the innocent party to terminate the contract. Failure to fulfill a condition
can lead to the contract being voided or the injured party seeking damages for the breach.
4. Warranties: Warranties are less critical terms compared to conditions. Breach of a
warranty does not give the right to terminate the contract but allows the injured party to
claim damages for the breach.
5. Innominate terms (Intermediate terms): Innominate terms are those which are neither
clearly conditions nor warranties. The consequences of breaching an innominate term
depend on the seriousness of the breach. If the breach substantially affects the contract's
foundation, it can be treated as a condition; otherwise, it is treated as a warranty.
6. Time-sensitive terms: These terms specify the time frame or deadlines for certain actions
or obligations to be fulfilled. Failure to meet time-sensitive terms can have consequences,
such as penalties or termination of the contract.
7. Payment terms: These terms outline the agreed-upon payment schedule, methods of
payment, and any related financial arrangements.
8. Confidentiality terms: Confidentiality terms restrict the disclosure of certain information
exchanged between the parties during the course of the contract.
9. Termination or Force Majeure terms: These terms outline the conditions under which
the contract can be terminated by either party or describe the consequences if unforeseen
events (force majeure events) prevent the fulfillment of contractual obligations.
10. Choice of Law and Jurisdiction terms: These terms determine which legal system governs
the contract and which jurisdiction's courts will handle any disputes arising from the
contract.
Page 41
11. Entire Agreement clause: This clause states that the contract constitutes the entire
agreement between the parties and supersedes any previous understandings or
agreements.
WHAT IS THE DOCTRINE OF SURVIVORSHIP?

The doctrine of survivorship is a legal principle that applies to joint tenancy co-ownership. In a
joint tenancy, when one co-owner passes away, their share of the property automatically transfers
to the surviving co-owner(s). This transfer happens without the need for a will or probate process.
Essentially, the surviving co-owner(s) "inherits" the deceased co-owner's share instantly. The
doctrine of survivorship does not apply to tenancy in common co-ownership. In a tenancy in
common, each co-owner's share can be passed on to their heirs through a will or according to
inheritance laws, and there is no automatic transfer of the deceased co-owner's share to the other
co-owners.
WHAT ARE THE FOUR (4) UNITIES?

In land law, the concept of "four unities" refers to the conditions that must be met for a joint tenancy
to exist. A joint tenancy is a type of co-ownership where co-owners have equal and undivided
shares of the property, and the key characteristic is the right of survivorship, where a co-owner's
share automatically passes to the surviving co-owners upon their death. The four unities that must
be present for a joint tenancy, which are appropriately acronymed “PITT”, are:
1. Unity of Possession: All co-owners must have an equal and undivided right to possess and
use the entire property. No one co-owner can claim exclusive possession of a specific part
of the property.
2. Unity of Interest: Each co-owner's share must be the same size, and they all have an equal
stake in the property.
3. Unity of Time: All co-owners must acquire their interests in the property at the same time.
In other words, they become co-owners simultaneously.
4. Unity of Title: Co-owners must acquire their interests from the same source or document,
such as the same deed or will.
If any of these unities is broken or not met, the joint tenancy could be converted into a tenancy in
common. For example, if one co-owner sells their share to a new owner, the unity of interest is
broken, and the new owner becomes a tenant in common with the other co-owners.
WHAT WAS THE PRINCIPLE ESTABLISHED IN SEYMOUR WILSON v.

MUSA ABESS?
In the case in question, Livesey Luke CJ established that for a claim of declaration of title, he who
brings said action must not rely on the weakness on the other party’s title but on the strength of
Page 42
his own. In addition, it was also stated that merely registering any instrument does not confer good
title as for a successful claim of declaration of title, it can be proved via one (1) of these means:
1. Establishing a good root of title, that can be unalterably traced all the way to the original
source; and
2. Adverse Possession, in consonance with the Limitation Statute in Sierra Leone.
WHAT IS MERCANTILE LAW?

Mercantile law, simplified, is a branch of law that deals with rules and regulations related to
business and commercial activities. It governs various aspects of business transactions, including
contracts, sales of goods, partnerships, company formation, banking, insurance, and more. The
main goal of mercantile law is to provide a legal framework that regulates and facilitates business
interactions, ensuring fair practices and protecting the rights of parties involved in commercial
dealings. It covers everything from how businesses are formed and operated to the legalities
surrounding buying, selling, and financing in the business world. Essentially, mercantile law is the
set of rules that businesses follow to operate legally and ethically in the marketplace. In Sierra
Leone, Mercantile law is principally governed by CAP 225 of the Laws of Sierra Leone (Sale of
Goods, 1960) and the Bill of Exchange Act (1882).
WHAT IS AN EXAMPLE OF A NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT?

Certainly! Another example of a negotiable instrument is a "bearer check." A bearer check is a type
of check that is payable to whoever holds or "bears" the physical instrument. Unlike regular checks,
which are payable to a specific person or entity (payee), bearer checks do not have a designated
payee's name written on them. Instead, they are payable to whoever has possession of the check.
Here's an example of how a bearer check works:
Let's say Company A issues a bearer check for $500. The check will typically have the following
text: "Pay to the Bearer" or "Pay to Cash." It will also include the check amount (in this case, $500),
the date of issuance, and the signature of an authorized representative of Company A.
Now, if Person X comes into possession of this bearer check, they become the "bearer" of the
instrument. As the bearer, Person X can take the check to any bank or financial institution, endorse
it (if required), and receive $500 in cash or have it deposited into their bank account.
Bearer checks are unique in that they are not linked to any specific person, which means they can
be negotiable instruments that can be easily transferred from one person to another. However,
because of their potential risk of loss or theft, they are less common in modern banking practices.
Most checks issued today are "order checks," which are payable to a specific payee and require
endorsement to be cashed or deposited.
Page 43
STATE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MURDER & MANSLAUGHTER
1. Intent:
- Murder: In murder cases, the perpetrator has the specific intent to cause the death of another
person or inflict serious bodily harm. It involves a deliberate and premeditated act of killing, often
driven by malice aforethought.
- Manslaughter: Manslaughter, on the other hand, lacks the element of specific intent to kill or
cause harm. It involves unintentional killing resulting from reckless behavior or negligence.
2. Culpability:
- Murder: Murder is considered more culpable and carries a higher level of moral
blameworthiness as it involves a willful and deliberate act to take someone's life.
- Manslaughter: While manslaughter is still a criminal offense, the level of culpability is

considered lower than in murder cases because the killing was not planned or intended.
3. Degrees of Homicide:
- Murder: Murder charges are often categorized into degrees based on the level of premeditation
and intent. For example, first-degree murder typically involves premeditation and careful planning,
while second-degree murder may lack premeditation but still involves an intentional killing.
- Manslaughter: Manslaughter does not usually have degrees, but it can be divided into voluntary
and involuntary manslaughter based on the circumstances surrounding the killing. Voluntary
manslaughter involves intentional killing without premeditation, often in the heat of the moment
due to provocation. Involuntary manslaughter, as mentioned earlier, results from reckless or
negligent behavior.
4. Punishment:
- Murder: Due to the higher level of intent and culpability, murder convictions carry more severe
penalties, including lengthy prison sentences, life imprisonment, or even the death penalty in
jurisdictions where it is legal.
- Manslaughter: Manslaughter convictions generally result in less severe punishments than

murder. The sentences may include imprisonment, probation, fines, or a combination of these,
depending on the circumstances and jurisdiction.
5. Mitigating Factors:
- Murder: Murder cases tend to have fewer mitigating factors as they involve intentional actions
with harmful intent. However, some jurisdictions may consider certain factors, such as the
defendant's mental state or history, as potential mitigating factors during sentencing.
Page 44
- Manslaughter: Manslaughter cases often involve more mitigating factors, as they can result from
accidents, sudden emotional outbursts, or other factors that contributed to the unintentional
killing.
STATE THE STAGES OF HOW A BILL COMES INTO LAW IN SIERRA

LEONE
The stages of how a bill is drafted is outlined in Section 106 of the Constitution of Sierra Leone
(Act No. 6 of 1991), which commences by stating that the power of parliament to make laws shall
be exercised by bills signed by the president and passed by parliament:
1. NOTICE REGARDING BILLS
After a bill is drafted, it is published in two successive issues of the Gazette at least nine (9) days
before it is introduced in the Parliament for the first reading. This notice period serves to inform
both MPs and citizens and solicit relevant reactions from the Parliament and interested members
of the public. The Minister or MP wishing to introduce the bill will sign and send a memorandum
along with a copy of the bill to the office of the Clerk. The memorandum concisely explains the
reasons for the bill and its main objectives. Parliament can hold pre-legislative meetings with the
Minister or MP in charge of the bill, where necessary, to scrutinize and discuss the bill. Parliament
can invite stakeholders to participate at such meetings if they also decide that it is necessary.
2. INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING
Once there has been a notice of a bill, it is read officially for the first time in the Parliament. The
first reading serves to inform the House of Parliament about the content of bill and its overall
purpose. At this stage there is usually no debate on a bill. The first reading serves to inform MPs
that a bill has been introduced and make MPs aware of the basic content of a bill before it moves
on to the next stage. A MP wishing to propose a private member bill should apply to the House by
a motion for permission for the first reading. The motion will contain the long title of the bill, the
objectives, and its key purposes. If the motion is granted, the MP will deliver a copy of the bill to
the Clerk of Parliament who will then read the short title of the bill aloud in plenary. A government
bill can be introduced by a Minister after a two days’ notice to Parliament through the office of the
Clerk. Upon such introduction, the Minister will move for the first reading of the bill.
3. SECOND READING
After the first reading, the Minister or MP in charge of the bill will move a motion (if necessary, the
motion can be seconded) for the second reading of the bill. The second reading can take place
immediately after the first reading. Alternatively, the Speaker in consultation with the Chairman of
the Business Committee and the Clerk of Parliament will name a future date for the second reading
to occur. At the second reading, the bill is explained. The Minister or MP who is proposing the bill
Page 45
will normally give a speech, summarizing the bill and explaining why it is needed. MPs will then
debate on the general merits and principles of the bill, but will avoid discussing its detail. Upon
conclusion of the debate, MPs will vote on the motion moved by the Minister or MP. If there is a
simple majority vote in support of the motion, the Clerk will read the long title of the bill aloud and
declare that the bill has been read for a second time. If there is not a simple majority vote in favor,
the bill is dead. From this stage, the bill will continue its journey towards becoming a law.
4. COMMITAL OF BILLS
After the second reading, the next step in the process is the committal of bills, or the committee
stage. Normally, a bill will stand committed to a committee of the Whole House immediately after
the second reading. Alternatively, the House can move a motion for it to be assigned to a select
committee. The committees (Whole House or select) will carefully examine the details of the bill;
the title, preamble, clauses and schedules, point by point. The committees may make relevant
changes to the bill. Such changes are called amendments. They can amend the title, preamble,
clauses, and schedules of the bill as long as such amendments are relevant to the subject matter of
the bill. The Legislative Committee has jurisdiction over all bills introduced in Parliament.
5. THIRD READING
Here, Parliament will review the bill. With the permission of the Speaker, they can correct errors
where necessary. The Speaker will ask the House whether to proceed with the motion, which was
moved by the MP or Minister in charge of the bill for the third reading. If the motion is passed, the
Clerk will read the long title of the bill. After the bill has been read for the third time, it will then be
passed into law (on the part of Parliament). The Clerk of Parliament will process and certify the bill
and submit it to the President through the Secretary to the President for his assent.
6. PRESIDENTIAL ASSENT
The President of Sierra Leone is invested with the power to sign bills into law. While the legislature
makes laws and considers policies of the Executive, the Executive implements policies and enforces
laws passed by the Legislature. The President’s power to sign bills into law is a part of the checks
and balances of Sierra Leone’s democracy. After the president signs a bill, it is returned to the Clerk
of Parliament. In a case where the President refuses to sign the bill, it will be returned to Parliament
within fourteen days from the day the bill was received, stating reasons for his refusal. The bill can
however become a law if two-thirds of the parliament votes in favor.
7. PUBLICATION IN THE GAZETTE
Once a bill has either been signed by the President or vetoed but passed by a 2/3 majority in
parliament, the bill will be published in the Gazette. The new law comes into force on the day that
it is published in the government Gazette or on any other date as stated in the Act. Parliament may
also postpone any law from coming into operation, and can also make laws with retroactive effect.
Page 46
STATE THE TYPES OF TRUSTS IN TRUST LAW
In trust law, there are several types of trusts, each with its specific features and purposes. These
trusts are established to hold and manage assets for the benefit of beneficiaries. Here are some
common types of trusts in trust law:
1. Express Trust: An express trust is intentionally created by the settlor through a written or
oral declaration or by a written document like a trust deed or will. The terms and conditions
of an express trust are explicitly stated by the settlor, providing clear instructions for the
trustee on how to manage and distribute the trust assets.
2. Implied Trust: An implied trust arises based on the conduct or circumstances of the parties
involved, rather than being expressly created in writing. It can be either resulting or
constructive. A resulting trust occurs when there is an intention for a person to hold
property for the benefit of another, but the intention is not fully carried out. A constructive
trust is imposed by a court to prevent unjust enrichment or to correct a wrongful act.
3. Charitable Trust: A charitable trust is established for charitable purposes, benefiting the
public or a particular community. It must have a charitable purpose that falls under
recognized categories such as relieving poverty, advancing education, promoting religion,
or other purposes beneficial to the community.
4. Private Trust: A private trust is created for the benefit of specific individuals or a defined
group of individuals. The beneficiaries of a private trust must be clearly identified or
ascertainable.
5. Public Trust: A public trust is established for the benefit of the general public or a segment
of the public. It typically involves charitable or religious purposes.
6. Revocable Trust (Living Trust or Inter Vivos Trust): A revocable trust allows the settlor
to retain control over the trust assets during their lifetime. The settlor can make changes,
amend, or revoke the trust as they see fit. Upon the settlor's death or incapacitation, the
trust becomes irrevocable and its terms take effect.
7. Irrevocable Trust: An irrevocable trust cannot be altered, amended, or revoked by the
settlor after its creation without the consent of the beneficiaries or a court order. Once
assets are transferred to an irrevocable trust, they are no longer considered part of the
settlor's estate, offering potential tax and asset protection benefits.
8. Testamentary Trust: A testamentary trust is created through a will and takes effect upon
the death of the testator. It allows the testator to provide for specific beneficiaries after their
passing.
9. Discretionary Trust: In a discretionary trust, the trustee has the discretion to determine
how and when to distribute the trust assets among the beneficiaries. The trustee has the
authority to decide the timing and number of distributions based on the beneficiaries' needs
and other relevant factors.
Page 47
10. Fixed Trust (Non-Discretionary Trust): In a fixed trust, the beneficiaries have fixed and
predetermined interests in the trust assets. The trustee's role is mainly to manage the assets
and distribute them according to the fixed terms specified in the trust deed.
These are some of the primary types of trusts in trust law, each serving different purposes and
offering various benefits depending on the specific circumstances and objectives of the settlor. It's
essential to consult with legal and financial professionals to determine the most appropriate type
of trust for individual needs and goals.
WHAT IS MURDER?
Under UK common law, murder is defined as the unlawful killing of another person with malice
aforethought. More specifically, the first attempt made at defining murder was by Sir Edward Coke,
the then Chief Justice of England, when he said “It is murder for a person of sound memory and
of the age of discretion unlawfully to kill any reasonable creature in being and under the
King’s peace with malice aforethought either expressed by the party or implied by law, the
death taking place within a year and a day after such injury”. The key elements of this definition
are:
1. Unlawful Killing: The killing must be unlawful, meaning it is not justified or excused under
the law. For example, self-defense may be considered a justifiable killing, and it would not
be classified as murder.
2. Malice Aforethought: Malice aforethought refers to the mental state of the perpetrator at
the time of the killing. It involves the intention to cause death or serious bodily harm to the
victim. The term "aforethought" does not necessarily mean that the intent to kill must have
been premeditated or planned well in advance. It can also include killings that occur in the
heat of the moment but with the specific intention to cause death or serious harm.
To establish a charge of murder under common law, the prosecution must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally caused the death of another person without any
lawful justification or excuse. The mental element of malice aforethought is a crucial aspect in
determining whether a killing constitutes murder or a lesser offense, such as manslaughter.
In the context of UK common law, I can provide an example of a famous murder case that helped
establish important legal principles related to murder. This case is known as R v. Woollin (1998).
In this case, the defendant, Kenneth Woollin, threw his three-month-old baby son onto a hard
surface, causing severe head injuries that led to the child's death. The central issue in this case was
whether the defendant's actions amounted to murder or manslaughter. The key question before
the court was whether the intent required for murder, specifically "malice aforethought," was
present in the defendant's actions. The House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) clarified the legal
test for establishing intent in murder cases. The court held that for murder, the required intent is
Page 48
the same as "malice aforethought," which includes both the intention to kill and the intention to
cause grievous bodily harm (GBH).
The House of Lords set out the "Woollin test" to determine intent in murder cases. The court
applied the Woollin test and found that although the defendant did not intend to kill the child, he
did intend to cause GBH, which was virtually certain to result from his actions. As a result, the
defendant was convicted of murder. The test consists of two parts:
a) The Foresight Test: The jury must consider whether the defendant foresaw that their
actions were virtually certain to cause the death (or GBH) of the victim. If the jury finds that
the defendant foresaw this consequence as virtually certain, then the jury can infer the
necessary intent for murder.
b) Conditional Intent: The court clarified that the foresight of a virtually certain consequence
is not the same as intent. The jury should only use the foresight of consequence as evidence
of the defendant's intention, rather than as direct proof of intent.
Mens Rea for the crime of Murder was established in the leading case of R v VICKERS (1957). It
postulates expressed Mens Rea as:
1. An Intention to kill
2. An Intention to cause grievous bodily harm; and
3. An Intention to do something unlawful to any person, foreseeing that death or grievous
bodily harm is the natural and probable result.
WHAT ARE THE PENALTIES FOR MURDER & MANSLAUGHTER?

The penalties for murder and manslaughter under UK common law are as follows:
Murder:
The penalty for murder in the UK is life imprisonment. A person convicted of murder will receive
a mandatory life sentence. However, a "mandatory life sentence" does not necessarily mean that
the offender will spend their entire life in prison. Upon conviction for murder, a judge will
determine the minimum term (the "minimum term" or "tariff") that the offender must serve before
becoming eligible for parole. This is known as the "minimum term" or "tariff." The minimum term
takes into account the seriousness of the offense, the offender's culpability, and any aggravating or
mitigating factors. After serving the minimum term, the convicted person can apply for parole. The
Parole Board will then assess whether they can be safely released into the community. If deemed
eligible, the offender will be subject to parole conditions and supervision.
Manslaughter:
Page 49
The penalty for manslaughter can vary depending on the specific circumstances and the degree of
culpability involved. Manslaughter is generally considered a less serious offense than murder, as it
lacks the specific intent to cause death. There are two main categories of manslaughter in the UK:
1. Voluntary Manslaughter: This occurs when a person kills another person, but the killing
is mitigated by certain circumstances, such as provocation or diminished responsibility. The
sentence for voluntary manslaughter is discretionary and depends on the individual case's
circumstances. The court will consider factors such as the offender's level of responsibility
and any extenuating circumstances.
2. Involuntary Manslaughter: Involuntary manslaughter occurs when a person
unintentionally causes the death of another due to gross negligence or unlawful and
dangerous acts. The sentence for involuntary manslaughter can also vary depending on the
specific case and any aggravating or mitigating factors.
DEFINE DECREE NISI AND DECREE ABSOLUTE

In the context of UK law, "Decree Nisi" and "Decree Absolute" are terms used in divorce
proceedings. These terms mark different stages in the legal process of obtaining a divorce.
1. Decree Nisi: Decree Nisi is an intermediate stage in a divorce case. It is a provisional order
granted by the court, declaring that the court sees no reason why the divorce should not
proceed. At this stage, the court is satisfied that the legal grounds for divorce have been met,
but the marriage is not yet officially dissolved.
2. Decree Absolute: Decree Absolute is the final order in a divorce case, officially ending the
marriage. Once the Decree Absolute is granted, the divorce is complete, and both parties are
free to remarry if they wish.
In the notable case of Owens v. Owens (2018), the wife, Tini Owens, sought a divorce from her
husband, Hugh Owens, on the grounds of unreasonable behavior. However, her husband contested
the divorce, leading to a significant legal battle. Under UK law, there are five grounds for divorce,
one of which is "unreasonable behavior." Tini Owens alleged that her husband's behavior was
unreasonable and that she could not continue to live with him. However, Hugh Owens denied the
allegations and refused to consent to the divorce. In response, Tini Owens sought a divorce based
on her husband's unreasonable behavior, but the court rejected her application. The case ultimately
reached the UK Supreme Court. In July 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that Tini Owens could not
obtain a divorce at that time based on her husband's unreasonable behavior. The court held that
the legal test for "unreasonable behavior" had not been met, and the marriage could not be
dissolved.
Page 50
NAME THREE (3) COURTS OF FIRST INSTANCE IN SIERRA LEONE
In Sierra Leone, given the judicial setup, 3 courts of first instance in Sierra Leone are the Local
Courts, for matter that fall within the geographical vicinity of any local court, the High Court of
Justice, for civil and criminal matters that ascend beyond the jurisdiction of the Local and
Magistrate Courts, and the Supreme Court, for matters relating to the interpretation of the
constitution.
WHAT ARE ENTRENCHED CLAUSES AND GIVE A FEW EXAMPLES IN

THE 1991 CONSTITUTION
Entrenched clauses in constitutional law refer to provisions within a constitution that are given
special protection from ordinary amendment procedures. These clauses are designed to safeguard
specific fundamental principles, values, or rights, making them more difficult to change compared
to other parts of the constitution. The term "entrenched" implies that these clauses are deeply
ingrained in the constitution and can only be modified or repealed through a more rigorous and
cumbersome process than regular legislation or constitutional amendments. In the context of
Sierra Leone, Section 108 (3) of the Constitution outlines the entrenched clauses encapsulated
therein, which includes the mode of alteration of the constitution (i.e., Sec. 108), the entirety of
Chapter three of the constitution (i.e., Sections 15-29), among a host of others. These entrenched
clauses have a higher amendment threshold, which, by default, are accorded with special
protection.
WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CRIMES AND TORTS?

In the legal context, a crime and a tort are two distinct types of wrongdoings, each with its own set
of principles and consequences. Here's a brief explanation of the difference between a crime and a
tort in the UK, along with a notable locus classicus case for each:
Crime:
- A crime is a wrongful act committed against society as a whole. It is considered an offense against
the state and is prosecuted by the state in criminal courts.
- The primary purpose of criminal law is to maintain social order, deter criminal behavior, and
punish wrongdoers through fines, imprisonment, or other penalties.
- Crimes are typically categorized as offenses against persons (e.g., murder, assault), property (e.g.,
theft, arson), or public order (e.g., rioting, disorderly conduct).
One of the most well-known criminal cases in UK legal history is R v Dudley and Stephens (1884).
In this case, the defendants were shipwrecked at sea and faced starvation. They killed and ate a
Page 51
young cabin boy to survive. The court held that necessity could not justify murder, and the two
defendants were found guilty and sentenced to death.
Tort:
- A tort is a civil wrong committed against an individual or their property, resulting in harm or
injury. It is a private wrong, and the injured party (plaintiff) can seek compensation (damages)
from the wrongdoer (defendant) through civil courts.
- The purpose of tort law is to provide remedies to individuals who have suffered harm due to the
wrongful acts or omissions of others and to compensate them for their losses.
One of the most influential tort cases in the UK is Donoghue v Stevenson (1932). In this case, the
plaintiff consumed a bottle of ginger beer that had a decomposed snail in it, causing her to fall ill.
She sued the manufacturer of the ginger beer, arguing that they owed her a duty of care. The House
of Lords ruled in her favor and established the modern concept of negligence in tort law, the
"neighbor principle," stating that individuals must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions
that could reasonably be foreseen to cause harm to others.
WHAT IS THE ROME STATUTE?

The Rome Statute refers to the treaty that established the International Criminal Court (ICC). The
ICC is an international court of last resort with jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for the most
serious crimes of international concern, such as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes,
and the crime of aggression. The Rome Statute was adopted on July 17, 1998, during a diplomatic
conference held in Rome, Italy. The treaty came into force on July 1, 2002, after it was ratified by 60
countries. Including Sierra Leone, there are 123 states parties to the Rome Statute. Key features of
the Rome Statute include:
1. Jurisdiction: The ICC has jurisdiction over crimes committed on the territory of a state
party, by a national of a state party, or when a situation is referred to the ICC by the United
Nations Security Council.
2. Crimes under Jurisdiction: The Rome Statute established four core international crimes
under the ICC's jurisdiction: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime
of aggression. These crimes are considered to be of grave concern to the international
community and can be prosecuted before the ICC.
3. Complementarity: The principle of complementarity is a key element of the Rome Statute.
It means that the ICC only steps in to prosecute cases when national legal systems are unable
or unwilling to do so genuinely.
4. Independence and Impartiality: The ICC operates independently from any government
or organization. Its judges and personnel are expected to act impartially in their pursuit of
justice.
Page 52
5. Victims' Participation and Reparations: The Rome Statute emphasizes the participation
of victims in ICC proceedings and provides for the possibility of reparations for victims of
the crimes under the Court's jurisdiction.
6. Defendants' Rights: The Rome Statute also ensures that the rights of the accused are
protected, including the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence.
WHAT IS PAST CONSIDERATION AND THE RULE THEREIN?

"Past consideration" refers to a situation in contract law where a promise is made in return for an
act or service that has already been completed before the promise was made. In general, past
consideration is not considered valid consideration for forming a legally binding contract. For a
contract to be enforceable, there must be consideration exchanged between the parties, which
means both parties must give something of value in exchange for the promise. In the case of Re
McArdle [1951], a family carried out improvements to a house, and after the work was completed,
they requested payment from the owner, Mrs. McArdle. She agreed to pay them £488 in writing.
However, the question arose as to whether the promise to pay was supported by valid
consideration since the improvements had already been made when the promise was given. The
court held that the promise to pay made after the improvements were completed was
unenforceable due to the doctrine of past consideration. The court stated that past consideration
is not valid consideration, as there was no bargain at the time the improvements were done. This
case reinforced the principle that past consideration is not sufficient to support a promise to pay
in a contract. To be legally enforceable, consideration must be provided before or
contemporaneously with the making of the promise.
WHAT IS A CROSS OFFER?

A "cross offer" is a situation that can occur during contract negotiations when both parties make
identical offers to each other. In this scenario, each party is acting as both an offeror (the one
making an offer) and an offeree (the one receiving an offer) simultaneously. The effect of a cross
offer is that neither party has unconditionally accepted the other's offer, as each offer is made in
response to the other party's offer. As a result, a contract is not formed because there is no mutual
agreement or meeting of the minds on the same terms. Let's illustrate the concept of a cross offer
with an example:
Suppose Alice and Bob are negotiating the sale of a used laptop. Alice sends an email to Bob,
offering to sell the laptop for $500. At the same time, Bob sends an email to Alice, offering to buy
the laptop for $500. In this scenario, Alice is making an offer to sell, but she is also receiving an
offer from Bob to buy at the same price. Similarly, Bob is making an offer to buy, but he is also
receiving an offer from Alice to sell at the same price. Since both parties have made identical offers
to each other, there is no clear acceptance of an offer. As a result, there is no mutual assent or
Page 53
agreement on the terms of the sale. Therefore, a contract is not formed, and neither party is legally
obligated to proceed with the transaction. It is essential to distinguish cross offers from situations
where one party makes a counteroffer. In a counteroffer, the offeree responds to the original offer
with a new proposal, which effectively rejects the original offer and introduces new terms. On the
other hand, in a cross offer, both parties are making identical offers to each other, resulting in no
enforceable contract. In Tinn v. Hoffman (1873), which is a case that concerned the validity of
two cross offers, the issue in this case was whether there was a valid contract between Mr. Tinn
and Mr. Hoffman for the sale of the iron. It was held in this case that there was no contract between
Mr. Tinn and Mr. Hoffman for the iron. The cross offers were made simultaneously and without
knowledge of one another; this was not a contract that would bind the parties for the iron.
WHAT IS THE PRINCIPLE ESTABLISHED IN THE HIGH TREES CASE

AND WHAT JUDGE ESTABLISHED SAID PRINCIPLE?
The principle established in the High Trees case is known as the "doctrine of promissory estoppel."
The case is formally known as Central London Property Trust Ltd v. High Trees House Ltd
[1947]. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is a legal principle that prevents a party from going
back on its promise or representation when the other party has relied upon that promise to their
detriment. In other words, if one party makes a promise, and the other party relies on that promise
to their disadvantage, the promisor may be estopped (prevented) from breaking the promise, even
if there is no formal contract between the parties. During World War II, the plaintiffs (Central
London Property Trust Ltd) leased a block of flats from the defendants (High Trees House Ltd) in
London. Due to the war, the flats were not fully occupied, and the parties agreed to a reduced rent
as a temporary measure. In 1945, the war ended, and the flats became fully occupied. The plaintiffs
then sought to claim the full rent for the post-war period.
However, the defendants argued that they were entitled to the reduced rent for the post-war period
based on the earlier agreement. The plaintiffs contended that the original agreement for reduced
rent was merely a wartime arrangement and did not apply once the war was over. The principle of
promissory estoppel was developed by Lord Denning in the High Trees case. Lord Denning, then a
judge in the Court of Appeal, held that even though the original agreement was not supported by
consideration (a necessary element for a contract), the defendants were estopped from claiming
the full rent for the post-war period. This was because the plaintiffs had relied on the promise of
reduced rent, and it would be unfair to allow the defendants to go back on their promise.
WHO IS THE HEAD OF THE SIERRA LEONE JUDICIARY?

The Head of the Judiciary of Sierra Leone, as established in Section 120 (1) of the Constitution of
Sierra Leone (Act No. 6 of 1991) is His Excellency Honorable Justice Desmond Babatunde Edwards.
Page 54
BRIEFLY EXPLAIN THE YEAR AND A DAY RULE
The "year and a day rule" was a common law principle in the United Kingdom and other
jurisdictions, which stated that no one can be convicted of murder or manslaughter if the victim
does not die within a year and a day after the stab or act resulting in death. The application of the
year and a day rule was established in the case of R v DYSON (1908), where the victim had been
injured by Dyson in November 1906, and again in November 1907. He died in March 1908. His
conviction of manslaughter was quashed on the grounds that the jury had been misdirected that
they could convict if they find that death had been caused by the injury inflicted in 1906. In setting
Dyson’s conviction aside, their Lordships of the Criminal Court of Appeal said, “it is still undoubtedly
the law of the land that no person can be convicted of manslaughter where the death does not occur
within a year and a day after the injury was inflicted, for in that event, it must be attributed to some
other cause”. If death had been accelerated by the injuries in 1907, they could properly have
convicted Dyson. So, the law does not take note of part of a day. If the blow is struck at any time on
the 27th July 2019, death must occur before midnight of 27th July 2020 to be within the year and
a day rule. The prosecution bears the responsibility of proving that the victim’s death was caused
by the conduct of the accused. In R v. Cato (1976), the defendant had attacked the victim, resulting
in injuries that led to the victim's paralysis. The victim subsequently died more than a year and a
day after the attack, and the defendant was charged with manslaughter. The court ruled that the
year and a day rule should no longer be applied in English law and held the defendant responsible
for the victim's death. After this ruling, the year and a day rule was effectively abolished in the UK.
Causation is now determined based on the standard principles of causation, and a defendant can
be held criminally liable for a homicide regardless of the time that has elapsed between the act and
the victim's death, as long as there is a clear causal connection between the two.
WHAT IS CAUSATION IN LAW?

In law, causation refers to the causal link between a defendant's actions and the resulting harm or
consequences. It is an essential element in establishing liability for certain types of legal claims,
particularly in tort and criminal law cases. Causation helps determine whether the defendant's
actions were a substantial factor in causing the alleged harm or if there was a direct cause-and-
effect relationship between the defendant's conduct and the resulting injury or damage.
In both tort and criminal law, establishing causation is crucial for determining liability and
assigning responsibility for the consequences of one's actions. Without a clear causal link
between the defendant's conduct and the harm suffered by the plaintiff or victim, it becomes
challenging to hold the defendant legally accountable. Two (2) main aspects of causation are
commonly examined in UK case law:
1. Factual Causation ("But-For" Test):
Page 55
Factual causation, often referred to as the "but-for" test, seeks to establish whether the harm or
injury suffered by the plaintiff would not have occurred "but for" the defendant's actions. In other
words, if the harm would not have happened in the absence of the defendant's conduct, the
defendant's actions are considered a factual cause of the harm.
2. Legal Causation ("Remoteness of Damage"):
Legal causation, also known as "proximate cause" or "remoteness of damage," addresses whether
the defendant's actions were a legally significant cause of the harm. Even if the defendant's
actions were a factual cause, legal causation examines whether the harm was a reasonably
foreseeable consequence of the defendant's conduct. If the harm is considered too remote or
unforeseeable, legal causation may not be established, and the defendant may not be held liable.
In R v. White (1910), the defendant attempted to poison his mother's drink to inherit her money.
The mother drank the poisoned drink but died of a heart attack, not as a direct result of the
poison. The court ruled that the defendant was not guilty of murder because his actions were not
the factual cause of the death. The "but-for" test was not satisfied as the mother would have died
of a heart attack even without the poison.
In Barnett v. Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee (1969), the plaintiff's
husband was brought to the hospital with vomiting and stomach pain. The hospital's receptionist
refused to summon a doctor, and the patient died later that night from arsenic poisoning. The court
held that even if the hospital staff had called a doctor, the patient's chances of survival were
negligible due to the severity of the poisoning. Therefore, the hospital's failure to summon a doctor
was not the factual cause of the patient's death, and the hospital was not liable.
WHAT ARE THE DEFENCES TO MURDER?

Under UK common law, there are several defenses that a defendant charged with murder can raise
to avoid liability or reduce the charge. These defenses can negate the elements required to prove
murder and, if successful, can lead to a lesser charge or even an acquittal. The main defenses to
murder in the UK include:
1. Self-Defense: A defendant can claim self-defense if they believed that their actions were
necessary to protect themselves or others from an imminent threat of death or serious
bodily harm. The force used must be reasonable and proportionate to the perceived threat.
2. Duress: The defense of duress applies when a defendant commits the murder under the
threat of serious harm or death to themselves or others. The threat must be immediate and
irresistible, leaving the defendant with no reasonable opportunity to avoid committing the
crime.
3. Diminished Responsibility: If the defendant can show that they suffered from a
recognized mental disorder at the time of the offense, which substantially impaired their
Page 56
ability to understand the nature of their actions or to control their behavior, they may be
convicted of manslaughter rather than murder.
4. Provocation: The defense of provocation may apply if the defendant acted in the heat of the
moment and was provoked to kill by a serious and sudden wrongful act or insult that led
them to temporarily lose self-control. If successfully argued, this defense can lead to a
charge of voluntary manslaughter rather than murder.
5. Accidents and Mistakes: If the defendant can show that the killing was purely accidental or
a result of an honest mistake, it may lead to a defense against murder charges. However, it
is essential to establish that the act was unintentional and not the result of recklessness or
gross negligence.
It's important to note that these defenses may not guarantee complete acquittal, but they can
potentially lead to a reduction in charges, such as manslaughter, which carries a lesser penalty than
murder. Each case is unique, and the viability of a defense depends on the specific circumstances
and evidence presented during the trial.
WHAT IS A CHEQUE?
Pursuant to Section 73 of the Bills of Exchange Act (1882), a cheque is “…a bill of exchange drawn
on a banker pay- Cheque able on demand.” Simply put, a cheque is a widely used negotiable
instrument in the financial system. It is a written order issued by an account holder, known as the
drawer, to their bank to pay a specific sum of money to a payee (the recipient). Cheques are
commonly used for various financial transactions, including paying bills, making purchases, or
transferring money between individuals or businesses. The key components of a cheque include:
1. Drawer: The person who writes and signs the cheque, instructing their bank to make the
payment.
2. Payee: The individual or business who receives the payment specified in the cheque.
3. Amount: The specific sum of money to be paid to the payee, written both in numbers and
words to prevent alterations.
4. Date: The date when the cheque is issued. It indicates when the cheque becomes valid and
can be presented for payment.
5. Drawee Bank: The bank on which the cheque is drawn. It is the bank responsible for
making the payment to the payee.
6. Cheque Number: A unique identification number assigned to each cheque for tracking
purposes.
7. Signature: The drawer's signature is required to authorize the payment.
Page 57
WHAT ARE THE TYPES OF LAND TENURE?
Land tenure refers to the legal or institutional arrangements under which land is held, used, and
transferred from one party to another. Different types of land tenure systems exist around the
world, and they can vary significantly based on cultural, historical, and legal factors. Some common
types of land tenure include:
1. Freehold Tenure: In a freehold tenure system, individuals or entities have full ownership
rights over the land. This means they have the right to use, possess, sell, transfer, or even
bequeath the land to their heirs. Freehold tenure is considered the highest form of land
ownership.
2. Leasehold Tenure: In a leasehold tenure system, individuals or entities hold the land under
a lease agreement with the landowner. The lease specifies the duration of the lease and the
terms and conditions of use. At the end of the lease period, the land reverts to the original
landowner unless the lease is renewed.
3. Tenancy at Will: Tenancy at will refers to a less formal and often temporary arrangement
where a tenant occupies the land with the owner's permission. It can be terminated by
either party at any time without notice.
4. Tenancy for Years (Fixed-Term Tenancy): A tenancy for years is a lease agreement with a
specific fixed duration. It provides certainty to both the landlord and the tenant regarding
the length of the tenancy.
5. Life Estate: In a life estate, an individual (life tenant) holds the right to use and possess the
land for their lifetime. After the life tenant's death, the land reverts to the original owner or
passes to a predetermined beneficiary.
6. Community Tenure: In some cultures, and regions, land is held collectively by a community
rather than individuals. This type of tenure involves shared rights and responsibilities for
using and managing the land.
7. Customary Tenure: Customary tenure is prevalent in many traditional and indigenous
societies. It involves land rights and usage based on local customs and traditions rather than
formal legal systems.
8. Public Land Tenure: Public land is owned and managed by the government and is often
used for public purposes such as parks, roads, schools, or government buildings.
9. State Land Tenure: State land is owned and managed by the government and may be used
for various purposes, including commercial development, public projects, or agricultural
activities.
WHAT IS MEANT BY IMPERIAL STATUTE AND GIVE EXAMPLES

In the context of the United Kingdom, an imperial statute refers to a type of legislation that has a
specific legal characteristic. It is a law that has been enacted by the Parliament of the United
Kingdom but also extends to and applies to certain parts of the British Empire or later, the
Page 58
Commonwealth of Nations. Historically, the term "imperial statute" was used during the time of the
British Empire when the UK Parliament had authority over not only the domestic affairs of the
United Kingdom but also certain matters in the colonies and territories under British rule, much
like Sierra Leone. Imperial statutes were those acts of Parliament that explicitly stated their
applicability to the colonies or the dominions of the British Empire.
For example, Sierra Leone, pre-independence, adopted some British statutes during the British
colonial; as follows are a few:
1. The Imperial Statutes Act (Laws of Property) Adoption Act, Chapter 18 (Laws of Sierra
Leone 1960), which in 1933 adopted the following statutes passed by the British
Parliament:
a. The Conveyancing Act and Law of Property Act 1881, 1882, 1892 & 1911;
b. The Settled Land Act, 1882;
c. The Trustee Act, 1888 & 1893;
d. The Trustees Appointment Act, 1890;
e. The Voluntary Conveyances Act, 1893. Etc.
2. The Imperial Statutes Act (Criminal Law) Adoption Act, Chapter 27 (Laws of Sierra Leone
1960), also adopted in 1933 the following statutes:
a. The English Perjury Act, 1911;
b. The Forgery Act, 1913;
c. The Larceny Act, 1916 etc.
WHAT IS DEFAMATION AND WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES

BETWEEN LIBEL & SLANDER?
The tort of defamation protects a person’s reputation. Defamation must be considered along with
the rules on privacy including Article 8, the right to private life, and Article 10, the right to freedom
of expression, from the European Convention on Human Rights which was incorporated into Sierra
Leone law Pursuant to Chapter (3) of the 1991 Constitution. In Sim v Stretch [1936], it was defined
as: ‘the publication of an untrue statement which lowers the claimant in the estimation of
right-thinking members of society or causes them to be shunned or avoided.’ It is a statement
which harms someone’s reputation, for example, a false statement that someone is a terrorist
would be defamatory.
STATE THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF CONSTITUTIONS

Constitutions are the fundamental laws that establish and govern a country or organization. There
are several types of constitutions, and they can be categorized based on their form, origin, and
degree of specificity. Here are the main types of constitutions:
Page 59
1. Written Constitution: A written constitution is one that is codified in a single document or
a series of documents. It outlines the fundamental principles, structure of government, and
individual rights. Countries with written constitutions include the United States, Germany,
India, and Japan. A written constitution offers clarity and ease of reference since all
constitutional provisions are found in one place.
2. Unwritten Constitution: An unwritten constitution is not codified in a single document.
Instead, it consists of a combination of written and unwritten sources, such as historical
documents, statutes, conventions, judicial decisions, and traditions. The United Kingdom is
an example of a country with an unwritten constitution, often referred to as a "constitutional
monarchy." The constitution is not explicitly set out in a single document, but it is derived
from various sources over time.
3. Flexible Constitution: A flexible constitution can be amended or changed through a
relatively simple and ordinary legislative process. In such systems, there is no distinction
between constitutional laws and ordinary laws. Most parliamentary democracies, like the
United Kingdom, have flexible constitutions. Amendments to the constitution can be made
through regular parliamentary procedures.
4. Rigid Constitution: A rigid constitution is more difficult to amend and requires a special
amendment procedure that is distinct from the regular legislative process. In most cases,
amendments to a rigid constitution require a supermajority vote in the legislature or a
separate constitutional convention. Examples of countries with rigid constitutions include
the United States and Germany.
5. Federal Constitution: A federal constitution establishes a division of powers between a
central or national government and regional or state governments. It allocates specific
powers to each level of government while also reserving some powers for the central
authority. Examples of countries with federal constitutions include the United States,
Nigeria, Canada, and Australia.
6. Unitary Constitution: In a unitary constitution, all powers are concentrated in a central or
national government, and regional or local governments derive their authority from the
central government. The central government can create or abolish local governments and
may delegate powers to them. The United Kingdom is an example of a unitary state.
7. Presidential Constitution: A presidential constitution establishes a clear separation of
powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. The
president serves as both the head of state and the head of government, and they are elected
independently of the legislature. The United States is an example of a presidential system.
8. Parliamentary Constitution: In a parliamentary constitution, the executive branch is fused
with the legislative branch. The head of government (usually the prime minister) is chosen
from the majority party in the legislature and is accountable to it. The United Kingdom and
many other Commonwealth countries have parliamentary systems.
Page 60
WHAT IS VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA?
"Volenti non fit injuria" is a Latin phrase that translates to "to one who is willing, no harm is done." It
is a legal principle in tort law that refers to the defense that a defendant can raise when the claimant
voluntarily accepts a known risk and voluntarily consents to the harmful act or situation. In such
cases, the defendant can argue that the claimant cannot seek compensation for any harm or injury
suffered because they knowingly and willingly assumed the risk. To successfully rely on the defense
of Volenti non fit injuria, the defendant must prove two essential elements:
1. Knowledge of the Risk: The claimant must be aware of the specific risk involved and fully
understand its potential consequences. They should have knowledge of the danger before
voluntarily participating in the activity or situation.
2. Voluntary Acceptance: The claimant must voluntarily and freely accept the risk without
any coercion or compulsion. Their consent must be genuine and not obtained through
deceit or misrepresentation.
However, there are exceptions to the defense of Volenti non fit injuria. It may not apply in cases of
gross negligence or willful misconduct on the part of the defendant. Additionally, in some
situations, the claimant's consent may not be considered valid, such as when the claimant is not in
a position to give informed consent, such as minors or mentally incapacitated individuals.
In Smith v. Charles Baker & Sons (1891), an experienced and skilled dockworker was injured
while unloading a cargo of sugar. He was injured when he fell into the hold of the ship due to the
employer's negligence in providing a safe working environment. The defendant argued the defense
of Volenti non fit injuria, claiming that the dockworker knew of the dangerous working conditions
and voluntarily accepted the risk of injury by continuing to work. The court held that the defense
was not applicable in this case because the dockworker had no real choice but to continue working
under those dangerous conditions. The principle does not apply when there is a clear inequality of
bargaining power or when the employee has no reasonable alternative but to accept the risk.
WHAT IS CONFESSION?
A confession is an admission made at any time by any person charged with a crime, stating or
suggesting the inference that he committed the crime. For a confession to be admissible in court, it
must be free & voluntary; if it is not free or voluntary, it is not admissible. When we say that a
confession must be free & voluntary, it means that it should not be made by any inducement,
threat or promise, having reference to the charge against the accused person proceeding from a
person in authority. A plea of guilt is a valid form of confession. Confessions can be made orally or
in writing. The following are authorities to support the proposition that for a confession to be
admissible, it must be free & voluntary:
Page 61
In the case of R v IBRAHIM (1914) AC 599, it was stated by Viscount Sumner that “It has long been
established as a positive rule of English Criminal Law that no statement by an accused is admissible
in evidence against him, unless it is shown by the prosecution to have been a voluntary statement, in
the sense that it has not been obtained from him either by fear of prejudice or hope of an advantage
exercised or held out by a person in authority”.
In D. P. P. v PING LIN (1976) AC 574, during an interview at a police station, a suspect, who was
suspected of supplying drugs attempted to negotiate a deal with the police officers. He said he
would disclose the name of his supplier in return for his release. When the police officers refused
the deal, he admitted dealing in heroin and the police officers said to him “If you show the judge
that you have helped the police to trace bigger drugs people, I am sure he will bear it in mind when
he sentences you”. At this point, the suspect named his supplier. This was brought out with evidence
in the case and the lawyer for the accused said that it was an involuntary confession because he
was induced to making this statement. The court rejected that submission and that the man had
already admitted to the crime.
WHAT IS CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE?

Contributory negligence is a legal principle in tort law that involves the partial fault of the claimant
(injured party) for their own injuries or damages. It applies when the claimant's actions or
omissions contribute to the harm they suffered. In cases of contributory negligence, the court
assesses the degree of responsibility of both the claimant and the defendant and apportions the
damages accordingly. To establish contributory negligence, the defendant must prove that:
1. The claimant owed a duty of care to themselves.

2. The claimant breached that duty by acting negligently or failing to exercise reasonable care.
3. The claimant's breach of duty contributed to the harm they suffered.
The court then determines the extent of the claimant's contribution to the injury and reduces the
damages awarded accordingly. The apportionment of damages is based on the principle of
comparative fault, meaning that each party is responsible for their share of the harm caused.
In Froom v. Butcher (1976), the claimant was injured in a road accident and suffered serious head
injuries due to not wearing a seatbelt. The court found that the claimant's failure to wear a seatbelt
significantly contributed to the severity of their injuries. As a result, the court applied the principle
of contributory negligence and reduced the damages awarded to the claimant by 25% to reflect
their degree of fault.
WHAT IS A RESULTING TRUST?

A resulting trust is a legal concept that comes into play when someone transfers property to
another person, but that recipient is not intended to be the true owner. Instead, the recipient is
Page 62
meant to hold the property for the benefit of the person who made the transfer. There are two
main types of resulting trusts:
1. Presumed Resulting Trust: In this type of resulting trust, the law presumes that the
transferee did not intend to retain beneficial ownership of the property. Instead, the
transferee is presumed to hold the property in trust for the transferor. The presumption
arises when the transferee provides no consideration (payment) for the property, or when
the consideration is significantly less than the property's value.
2. Automatic Resulting Trust: This type of trust arises when the parties intended for the
transferee to hold the property in trust for the transferor or another beneficiary, but this
intention is not expressed in writing or properly documented.
In Pettitt v. Pettitt (1970), a husband and wife divorced, and as part of the divorce settlement, the
wife transferred the family home to the husband. The husband made no financial contribution to
the purchase of the property, but the wife had used her money to buy it. After the divorce, the
husband claimed full ownership of the property. The court held that a resulting trust arose in
favor of the wife, as she provided the financial contribution for the property, and the husband did
not pay for it or contribute to the purchase. The court recognized the implied intention that the
husband would hold the property in trust for the wife, even though it was not explicitly stated.
WHAT IS THE LAW OF AGENCY?

The Law of Agency is a legal principle that governs the relationships between two parties: the
principal and the agent. It defines the rights, duties, and responsibilities of both parties when one
person (the agent) is authorized to act on behalf of another person or entity (the principal). This
relationship is based on mutual consent, where the principal gives the agent the authority to
perform certain tasks or make decisions on their behalf. Key elements of the Law of Agency include:
1. Principal: The party who grants the authority to act on their behalf. The principal can be
an individual, a corporation, a government entity, or any other legal entity.
2. Agent: The party who is authorized to act on behalf of the principal. The agent can be an
individual or an entity, such as an attorney, broker, or employee.
3. Agency Agreement: The contract or agreement that establishes the relationship between
the principal and the agent, outlining the scope of authority granted to the agent.
4. Fiduciary Duty: The agent has a legal obligation to act in the best interest of the principal
and to avoid any conflicts of interest that could compromise their loyalty to the principal.
5. Actual Authority: The authority explicitly given to the agent by the principal through
written or verbal instructions.
6. Implied Authority: The authority that is not explicitly stated but is reasonably assumed to
be necessary for the agent to carry out their responsibilities effectively.
Page 63
7. Apparent Authority: The perception of authority that a reasonable third party may assume
the agent possesses based on the principal's conduct or actions.
8. Duties and Obligations: The agent must adhere to the instructions of the principal, act
with reasonable care, avoid conflicts of interest, maintain confidentiality, and account for
any funds or property handled on behalf of the principal.
9. Termination of Agency: The agency relationship can be terminated by mutual consent,
completion of the task, expiration of the agreement, breach of contract, or certain events
like the death or incapacity of either party.
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JOINT TENANCY & TENANCY

IN COMMON?
Joint tenancy and tenancy in common are two different forms of property ownership, and they have
distinct characteristics and implications. Here are the key differences between the two:
1. Ownership Share: In joint tenancy, all co-owners have an equal share of the property. Each
owner has an undivided interest in the whole property. In tenancy in common, co-owners
can have unequal shares of the property. Each owner can own a specific percentage or
portion of the property.
2. Right of Survivorship: One of the most significant features of joint tenancy is the right of
survivorship. If one of the co-owners passes away, their share automatically transfers to the
surviving co-owners. The deceased co-owner's share does not pass through probate but
instead becomes the property of the surviving co-owners. Unlike joint tenancy, tenancy in
common does not include the right of survivorship. If one co-owner passes away, their share
will be passed on to their heirs or beneficiaries according to their will or the laws of intestate
succession. It does not automatically transfer to the other co-owners.
3. Creation: Joint tenancy is typically created by a single document, such as a joint tenancy
deed or title. The document must clearly express the intention to create a joint tenancy with
the right of survivorship. Tenancy in common can arise by default if the ownership
documents do not specify joint tenancy. It can also be intentionally created by explicitly
stating that the co-owners hold the property as tenants in common.
4. Severance: Joint tenancy can be severed if one of the co-owners sells or transfers their
interest to another person. In this case, the new owner would become a tenant in common
with the remaining co-owners, and the right of survivorship would no longer apply. Each
co-owner in a tenancy in common can freely sell, transfer, or mortgage their individual share
without affecting the ownership rights of the other co-owners. The property remains
divisible among the owners.
In summary, the main differences between joint tenancy and tenancy in common lie in the
ownership share, right of survivorship, and the ability to freely transfer interests. Joint tenancy
Page 64
offers equal shares and the right of survivorship, while tenancy in common allows for unequal
shares and no automatic transfer of ownership upon the death of a co-owner.
WHAT IS EVIDENCE AND ITS DIFFERENT FORMS?

Evidence refers to any information, facts, documents, objects, or testimonies presented in a legal
proceeding that is used to support or establish the truth of a matter in dispute. In the context of
law, evidence is crucial in determining the facts of a case and helping judges or juries reach a fair
and just decision. Various forms of evidence under the Law of Evidence include:
1. Direct Evidence: Evidence that directly proves a fact without requiring any inference. For
example, an eyewitness account of an event is considered direct evidence.
2. Circumstantial Evidence: Evidence that does not directly prove a fact but allows for a
reasonable inference to be made. For example, finding a suspect's fingerprints at a crime
scene is circumstantial evidence that may suggest their presence at the scene.
3. Documentary Evidence: Written or recorded evidence, such as contracts, emails,
photographs, videos, or other documents that can provide relevant information in a case.
4. Physical Evidence: Tangible objects or materials, such as weapons, clothing, or DNA
samples, which can be examined and used as evidence in a case.
5. Testimonial Evidence: Evidence provided through the statements or testimony of
witnesses or experts.
6. Digital Evidence: Electronically stored data, such as computer files, social media posts, or
digital communications, that can be used in legal proceedings.
7. Real Evidence: Physical objects or exhibits presented in court to demonstrate or illustrate
a point relevant to the case.
8. Hearsay Evidence: Statements made by a person who is not testifying in court but are
offered as evidence of the truth of the matter asserted. Hearsay is generally not admissible
unless it falls under certain exceptions.
9. Expert Evidence: Opinions or conclusions provided by qualified experts in their
respective fields to help the court understand complex or technical matters.
WHAT ARE THE RULES OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION?

Statutory interpretation is the process of understanding and applying the meaning of laws
(statutes) enacted by the legislative bodies. When courts are faced with interpreting statutes,
they aim to ascertain the intention of the legislature and give effect to that intention. This process
can be challenging as statutes may not always be explicit or may contain ambiguous language,
leading to differing interpretations. In Sierra Leone, courts use several established principles and
approaches for statutory interpretation. Some of the significant methods include:
Page 65
1. Literal Rule: Under this rule, the court gives the words of the statute their plain, ordinary,
and literal meaning, even if it leads to an absurd result. The principle is illustrated in the
case of Fisher v. Bell (1961), where the court held that displaying a flick knife in a shop
window did not constitute an "offer for sale" under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons
Act 1959 because the displayed items were not offered for immediate sale.
2. Golden Rule: The Golden Rule allows the court to depart from the literal rule if following
the literal meaning would lead to an absurdity. In such cases, the court chooses an
alternative interpretation that aligns with the intended purpose of the legislation. An
example is Adler v. George (1964), where the court applied the Golden Rule to interpret
the Official Secrets Act 1920 to avoid an absurd outcome.
3. Mischief Rule (Purposive Approach): This approach focuses on the purpose and intent of
the legislation, looking beyond the literal wording of the statute. The court aims to identify
the problem or "mischief" that the statute was meant to remedy and interpret the law in a
manner that addresses that problem. The Mischief Rule was first laid down in the Heydon’s
Case (1584) and provided that when a court is interpreting a statute, it must consider three
(3) factors:
a) What the law was before the statute was passed
b) What problem or mischief was the statute trying to remedy; and
c) What remedy Parliament was trying to provide
WHAT IS THE GRUNDNORM OF SIERRA LEONE?

The concept of the "Grundnorm" originates from the legal theory of Hans Kelsen, an Austrian jurist
and philosopher. In his theory of the "Pure Theory of Law," Kelsen introduced the idea of the
Grundnorm as a fundamental or basic norm that serves as the foundation for an entire legal system.
It represents the ultimate source of validity and authority for all other norms within that legal
system. In the context of Sierra Leone, pursuant to Section 171(15) of the 1991 Constitution, the
constitution itself is the ultimate source of law in Sierra Leone and any other source of law in Sierra
Leone that does not dovetail with the grundnorm shall, given the gravity of said inconsistency, be
deemed null & void.
WHAT IS A COUNTER OFFER?

A counteroffer is a response made by the offeree (the person receiving an offer) to the original
offeror (the person making the offer) that proposes different terms or conditions from those
contained in the initial offer. By making a counteroffer, the offeree essentially rejects the original
offer and creates a new offer, altering the terms of the original proposal. Here's an example to
illustrate the concept of a counteroffer: John offers to sell his car to Sarah for £10,000. Instead of
accepting John's offer outright, Sarah responds by saying she would be willing to buy the car for
Page 66
£9,000. In this scenario, Sarah's response is a counteroffer because she has proposed different
terms (a lower price) than what was initially offered by John.
In Hyde v. Wrench (1840), the defendant (Wrench) offered to sell his estate to the plaintiff (Hyde)
for £1,000. The plaintiff responded by making a counteroffer, stating that he would buy the estate
for £950. However, the defendant rejected the counteroffer and refused to sell the estate at the
reduced price. Subsequently, the plaintiff changed his mind and tried to accept the defendant's
original offer of £1,000. Nevertheless, the defendant refused to sell, arguing that the counteroffer
had terminated the original offer. The court ruled in favor of the defendant, holding that the
counteroffer had effectively terminated the initial offer. Once the counteroffer was made, the
original offer was no longer valid and could not be accepted later.
WHAT ARE INTENTIONAL & UNINTENTIONAL WRONGS? GIVE

EXAMPLES
In law, intentional and unintentional wrongs are two categories of civil wrongs, also known as torts.
Torts are civil actions where one party's actions or omissions cause harm or injury to another,
leading to legal liability. The key distinction between intentional and unintentional wrongs lies in
the mental state or intent of the person responsible for the harm.
1. Intentional Wrongs: Intentional wrongs occur when a person purposely engages in conduct
that causes harm to another individual or their property. The person committing the
intentional wrong has a deliberate and conscious intent to cause the harm. Examples of
intentional wrongs include:
a. Assault: A person intentionally causing another person to fear that they will be
physically harmed. For example, threatening to hit someone.
b. Battery: Intentionally causing physical harm or offensive contact with another
person. For example, physically hitting someone without their consent.
c. Defamation: Making false statements about someone that harm their reputation.
This includes both slander (spoken defamation) and libel (written defamation).
d. False Imprisonment: Intentionally restricting someone's freedom of movement
without their consent or lawful justification.
2. Unintentional Wrongs (Negligence): Unintentional wrongs, also known as negligence, occur
when a person fails to exercise the level of care that a reasonable person would under
similar circumstances, resulting in harm to another person or their property. Unlike
intentional wrongs, the harm caused is not a deliberate act, but rather a consequence of
carelessness or negligence. Examples of unintentional wrongs include:
a. Car Accidents: A driver who is not paying attention to the road and causes an
accident, resulting in injuries to others.
Page 67
b. Slip and Fall: A property owner failing to maintain safe conditions, leading to
someone slipping and getting injured.
c. Product Liability: Manufacturers producing defective products that cause harm to
consumers.
d. Professional Negligence: Professionals, such as lawyers or accountants, providing
services with a lack of due care, resulting in harm to their clients.
In both intentional and unintentional wrongs, the injured party (plaintiff) has the right to seek
compensation or damages from the person responsible for the harm (defendant) through civil legal
proceedings.
WHAT ARE REMIDIES IN CONTRACT LAW?

Remedies in contract law refer to the legal solutions available to parties when one party fails to
fulfill their contractual obligations. These remedies aim to compensate the injured party and, in
some cases, restore them to the position they would have been in if the breach had not occurred.
The primary remedies in contract law include:
1. Damages: Damages are monetary awards intended to compensate the non-breaching party
for the losses suffered due to the breach. There are different types of damages, including:
a. Compensatory Damages: These aim to put the injured party in the position they
would have been in had the contract been fully performed. It covers both direct and
foreseeable losses resulting from the breach.
b. Consequential or Special Damages: Also known as indirect damages, these are
losses that arise as a consequence of the breach but are not a direct result of the
breach itself.
c. Punitive Damages: In some cases, punitive damages may be awarded in addition to
compensatory damages if the breaching party's actions were particularly egregious
or malicious.
2. Specific Performance: In certain cases, a court may order the breaching party to perform
their obligations under the contract as specified. This is common in contracts involving
unique or rare items where monetary compensation would not be sufficient. This remedy
requires the breaching party to fulfill their obligations as specified in the contract. It is
typically available in cases where money damages are inadequate to remedy the harm, and
the subject matter of the contract is unique or rare.
3. Rescission: Rescission allows the non-breaching party to cancel the contract and be
restored to the position they were in before entering the contract. This remedy is available
when there has been a material breach of contract.
Page 68
4. Reformation: Reformation is an equitable remedy that allows the court to modify the terms
of the contract to reflect the parties' original intentions properly. It is often used when the
contract contains mistakes or ambiguities.
5. Liquidated Damages: Some contracts include a provision for liquidated damages, which
are predetermined amounts of damages that will be payable if a party breaches the contract.
The purpose of these provisions is to provide certainty about the damages in case of a
breach.
WHAT ARE THE TWO TYPES OF CRIMES?

Crimes can generally be classified into two main categories:
1. Felony: Felonies are serious offenses that are punishable by imprisonment for more than
one year and, in some cases, may even carry the possibility of the death penalty. Examples
of felonies include murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, and certain drug-related offenses.
2. Misdemeanor: Misdemeanors are less serious crimes than felonies and are typically
punishable by fines, probation, community service, or imprisonment for up to one year in
local jails rather than in state or federal prisons. Examples of misdemeanors include petty
theft, disorderly conduct, minor drug possession, and simple assault.
WHAT IS CIVIL LITIGATION AND WHO IS A CIVIL LITIGANT?

Litigation refers to the process of resolving legal disputes through the court system. It involves
bringing a legal case before a court and allowing a judge or jury to make a decision based on the
evidence and arguments presented by the parties involved. Litigation can occur in both civil and
criminal contexts, but here we'll focus on civil litigation. In civil litigation, a plaintiff (the party
initiating the lawsuit) files a complaint against a defendant (the party being sued). The defendant
then responds to the complaint, and the parties engage in a series of legal proceedings, including
discovery, motions, and possibly a trial. During the trial, both sides present their evidence and
arguments, and a judge or jury makes a decision based on the merits of the case.
A civil litigant is a person or entity involved in a civil lawsuit. It can refer to either the plaintiff (the
party bringing the lawsuit) or the defendant (the party being sued). Throughout the litigation
process, both the plaintiff and the defendant are referred to as civil litigants. For example, in a
personal injury case, the injured person (plaintiff) would be a civil litigant, and the party being
sued, such as an individual, company, or organization, would also be a civil litigant as the defendant.
Both parties are engaged in civil litigation to resolve the dispute between them.
WHAT LAW GOVERNS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SIERRA LEONE?

The law governing documentary evidence in Sierra Leone is CAP 26 of the Laws of Sierra Leone
(1960), Evidence (Documentary). This ordinance provides for relevant elements of the Law of
Page 69
Evidence in Sierra Leone, which it lacked, such as the admissibility of documentary evidence as to
facts in issue (Section 3), which states that in any civil proceedings where direct oral evidence of a
fact would be admissible, “…any statement made by a person in a document or tending to establish
that fact shall, on production of the original document, be admissible in evidence of that fact if…the
maker of the statement had personal knowledge of the matters dealt with by the statement… and if
the maker of the statement is called as a witness in the proceedings in question.” Other provisions
include the weight to be attached to such evidence, proof of instrument to validity of which
attestation is necessary, Presumption as to documents twenty years old, etc.
HOW CAN A TENANCY BE DETERMINED?

A tenancy can be determined in several ways, depending on the type of tenancy and the laws of the
jurisdiction. Here are some common ways in which a tenancy can be determined:
1. Expiration of the Lease: In a fixed-term tenancy, the tenancy is automatically terminated

at the end of the specified lease period. If the tenant does not renew the lease or enter into
a new agreement, they must vacate the premises.
2. Mutual Agreement: The landlord and tenant can agree to terminate the tenancy early
through a mutual agreement. This might involve signing a lease termination agreement or
a surrender of tenancy form.
3. Notice to Vacate: In many jurisdictions, either the landlord or the tenant can terminate a
periodic tenancy (month-to-month or week-to-week) by providing a written notice to
vacate. The notice period required usually depends on local laws and the terms of the lease.
Common notice periods range from 30 to 60 days.
4. Breach of Lease: If one party (landlord or tenant) violates the terms of the lease agreement,
the other party may have the right to terminate the tenancy. For example, if the tenant fails
to pay rent or engages in illegal activities on the property, the landlord may be able to evict
the tenant for breaching the lease.
5. Abandonment: If the tenant leaves the property without intending to return and without
giving notice, the landlord may consider the tenancy abandoned and retake possession of
the property.
WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF TENANCIES?

There are several types of tenancy, and the specific types available can vary depending on the
jurisdiction and local laws. Here are some common types of tenancy:
1. Fixed-Term Tenancy: This type of tenancy has a specified start and end date. The lease
agreement outlines the duration of the tenancy, and it automatically terminates at the end
of the agreed-upon period without the need for notice from either the landlord or the
tenant. It is common for residential and commercial leases to be fixed-term tenancies.
Page 70
2. Periodic Tenancy: A periodic tenancy has no fixed end date and continues for successive
periods until either the landlord or the tenant gives proper notice to terminate. Common
examples of periodic tenancies include month-to-month or week-to-week tenancies. Notice
periods for termination are usually specified in the lease agreement or governed by local
laws.
3. Tenancy at Will: Tenancy at will is a more informal arrangement where the tenant occupies
the property with the landlord's consent, but there is no fixed term or formal lease
agreement. It can be terminated by either party at any time with little notice.
4. Tenancy at Sufferance: Also known as "holdover tenancy," this occurs when a tenant
remains in possession of the property after the lease has expired without the landlord's
consent. In such cases, the landlord may choose to evict the tenant or create a new tenancy.
5. Joint Tenancy: Joint tenancy involves two or more tenants who have equal rights to the
entire property. If one tenant passes away, their share automatically passes to the surviving
joint tenants. This type of tenancy is commonly used for couples or business partners.
6. Tenancy in Common: Tenancy in common is similar to joint tenancy, but each tenant has a
distinct and separate share of the property. If one tenant dies, their share is passed on to
their heirs rather than to the other tenants.
7. Subtenancy: Subtenancy occurs when a tenant rents the property to another individual,
known as the subtenant. The original tenant remains responsible for the lease agreement
with the landlord and becomes the subtenant's landlord.
WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF ESTATES?

The classification of estate refers to the various types of interests that individuals or entities can
have in real property (land and the rights attached to it). These interests can be different in terms
of duration, transferability, and ownership rights. The three main classifications of estate are:
1. Freehold Estate: A freehold estate is an ownership interest in real property that lasts for
an indefinite period. It provides the owner with the most comprehensive bundle of rights
over the property. There are two primary types of freehold estates:
a. Fee Simple Absolute: This is the highest form of ownership, granting the owner
complete and unconditional rights over the property. The owner can use, sell, lease,
or will the property to heirs. The property will continue indefinitely, passing to the
owner's heirs upon their death.
b. Fee Simple Defeasible: In this type of estate, the ownership is subject to certain
conditions or limitations. If these conditions are violated, the property may revert to
the original grantor or a specified third party. Common examples include the "fee
simple determinable" and "fee simple subject to condition subsequent."
2. Leasehold Estate: A leasehold estate, also known as a non-freehold or less-than-freehold
estate, grants the right to possess and use the property for a specified period under a lease
Page 71
agreement. The leaseholder (tenant) does not own the property but has exclusive
possession and use of it during the lease term. Once the lease expires, the property returns
to the landlord (lessor).
3. Life Estate: A life estate provides ownership rights to a person (the life tenant) for the
duration of their life. The life tenant can use and enjoy the property during their lifetime,
but the ownership interest terminates upon their death. At that point, the property may
pass to a remainderman, who is typically identified in the original deed creating the life
estate.
Other classifications of estate include:
4. Estate for Years: This is a leasehold estate with a specific starting and ending date. It does
not automatically renew and terminates at the end of the agreed-upon period.
5. Estate at Will: A leasehold estate without a fixed term. It lasts as long as both the landlord
and tenant desire. Either party can terminate the tenancy at any time without formal notice.
6. Estate at Sufferance: Also known as "holdover tenancy," this is a tenancy where the tenant
remains on the property after the expiration of the lease without the landlord's consent.
WHAT INTEREST DOES A LESSOR HAVE OVER A LESSEE?

A lessor is the individual or entity that owns the asset or property being leased, while the lessee is
the individual or entity that is granted the right to use the asset or property for a specific period in
exchange for payment, typically referred to as "rent." The lessor has several interests or rights over
the lessee in this arrangement:
1. Ownership: The lessor retains ownership of the leased asset throughout the lease term.
This means that the lessee does not gain ownership rights over the asset, and they must
return it to the lessor at the end of the lease, subject to any agreed-upon terms or conditions.
2. Rent Payment: The lessee is obligated to make regular rent payments to the lessor as
specified in the lease agreement. Failure to pay rent on time may result in penalties or even
eviction, depending on the terms of the lease.
3. Condition of the Asset: The lessor has an interest in ensuring that the leased asset is
maintained in good condition during the lease term. Most lease agreements require the
lessee to take proper care of the asset and return it in the same condition, subject to
reasonable wear and tear.
4. Right of Entry: In many lease agreements, the lessor retains the right to enter the leased
property under certain circumstances, such as to inspect the property, make necessary
repairs, or show the property to potential buyers or new tenants.
5. Compliance with Terms: The lessor has the right to expect the lessee to adhere to all the
terms and conditions outlined in the lease agreement. This includes things like the
Page 72
permitted use of the property, restrictions on alterations, and adherence to local laws and
regulations.
6. Liability and Insurance: While the lessee is primarily responsible for their activities on the
leased property, the lessor may have certain liability interests related to the property's
condition and maintenance. Additionally, the lessor may require the lessee to obtain liability
insurance to protect against potential damages or accidents on the property.
Overall, the lessor's interests revolve around protecting their ownership rights, ensuring proper
payment, and maintaining the asset's condition during the lease term. On the other hand, the lessee
benefits from the right to use the asset without full ownership responsibilities.
WHAT IS THE RULE ESTABLISHED IN DEARLE V. HALL?

The rule established in Dearle v. Hall (1828) is known as the “first in time, first in right”
principle, which means that if the equitable owner of an asset attempts to sell or dispose of their
equitable interest to two or more parties, and all claimants have equal equities (equal rights), the
first claimant who notifies the legal owner or trustee of the asset will have the highest priority
claim over the asset. This principle helps establish a clear and straightforward method for resolving
competing equitable interests and ensures a fair outcome for all parties involved. It must be noted
that this rule is has a slight variation from the main principle; this rule regards to first notice giver
and not first right acquirer.
GIVE A SUCCINT APPRECIATION ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF

NEGLIGENCE VIA THE INCREMENTAL APPROACH
The incremental approach in tort law refers to the gradual development of legal principles and
precedents through a series of individual cases, where each case builds upon and refines the
existing body of law. Instead of making sweeping changes through legislative action, the
incremental approach allows the law to evolve incrementally based on specific factual scenarios
and legal arguments presented in each case. The incremental approach involves judges making
decisions in individual cases that set precedents for future cases with similar issues. Over time,
these precedents accumulate, shaping and refining the principles and rules governing tort liability
and compensation for harm caused by wrongful acts or omissions. The development of the duty of
care in the UK via case law can be summarized as follows:
1. Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932): This landmark case established the modern concept of
duty of care in negligence. Mrs. Donoghue consumed a bottle of ginger beer that contained
a decomposed snail. She suffered illness and sued the manufacturer, Stevenson. The House
of Lords ruled that manufacturers owe a duty of care to consumers to produce safe products.
Lord Atkin herein established the Neighbor Principle
Page 73
2. Anns v. Merton London Borough Council (1978): This case further expanded the duty of
care by introducing a two-prong test developed by Lord Denning. It required courts to
consider whether a relationship existed and whether it was just and reasonable to impose
a duty of care. However, this test was later criticized and partially overruled.
3. Caparo Industries plc v. Dickman (1990): The Caparo test emerged, refining the duty of
care analysis. It introduced three elements to establish a duty: foreseeability of harm,
proximity between parties, and it must be fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty. This is
the current authority on common law Negligence.
EXPLAIN WHAT IS MEANT BY CONDITIONS, WARRANTIES AND

INOMINATE TERMS IN CONTRACT LAW
In contract law, the terms "condition," "warranty," and "innominate term" are used to classify
different types of contractual obligations and their legal consequences concerning breach and
remedies. Let's explain each of these terms:
1. Condition: A condition is a crucial term in a contract that goes to the root of the agreement.
It is a fundamental and essential obligation that must be strictly complied with for the
contract's performance. If a condition is breached, the innocent party has the right to
terminate the contract and claim damages. The breach of a condition is considered a serious
failure that goes to the heart of the contract. In Poussard v. Spiers and Pond (1876), an
opera singer was contracted to perform in a theater production. She fell ill and was unable
to perform on the opening night. The court held that her inability to perform on the specified
date was a breach of a condition, allowing the theater company to terminate the contract.
2. Warranty: A warranty is a less critical term in a contract compared to a condition. If a
warranty is breached, the innocent party may claim damages, but they do not have the right
to terminate the contract. In Bettini v. Gye (1876), a singer was contracted to perform for
a certain period but arrived a few days late. The court ruled that the delay was a breach of
warranty, and the theater company could claim damages but could not terminate the
contract.
3. Innominate Term: An innominate term is a contractual term whose classification as a
condition or a warranty depends on the seriousness of the breach and its consequences.
The nature of the term is determined by the actual impact of the breach on the contract. In
Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v. Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd (1961), a ship charter
party specified that the ship should be in a "seaworthy" condition. The ship had engine
problems, which affected its performance for a substantial period. The court held that the
term "seaworthiness" was an innominate term. The court stated that the seriousness of the
breach would determine whether the charterers had the right to terminate the contract. In
this case, the breach was not serious enough to justify termination, but the charterers were
entitled to claim damages.
Page 74
In summary, conditions, warranties, and innominate terms play a crucial role in contract law,
determining the parties' rights and remedies in the event of a breach. Conditions are fundamental
and allow termination, warranties allow only for damages, while innominate terms depend on the
actual impact of the breach on the contract to determine their consequences.
WHAT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE IN CRIMINAL LAW?

"Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea" is a Latin phrase in criminal law that translates to "the
act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty." It reflects the principle that a
criminal act (actus reus) alone is not sufficient to establish guilt; there must also be a criminal
intent or guilty mind (mens rea) accompanying the act for an individual to be held criminally liable.
In addition, a neglected element regarding criminal liability is the absence of a valid defence. Where
an appropriate defence applies, this can lead to the partial or total acquittal of a charge. In simpler
terms, for someone to be convicted of a crime, there must be evidence not only of their physical
actions constituting the offense but also of their criminal intention, knowledge, or recklessness in
committing those actions as well as no outstanding characteristics such as infancy, intoxication,
insanity, etc. This was established in Haughton v Smith (1975)
To illustrate the workability of this principle, let’s look at a precedent that exemplifies the principle
"actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea" in action, as the court emphasized the need to establish both
the criminal act (disconnecting the gas meter) and the criminal intent (malicious intent or
recklessness) to hold the defendant criminally responsible. In R v. Cunningham (1957), the
defendant was charged with "unlawful and maliciously administering a noxious substance" under
Section 24 of the Offences Against the Person Act (1861). The defendant had disconnected the gas
meter in the victim's home, intending to steal gas, but ended up releasing gas into the property,
endangering the victim's life. The court ruled that "maliciously" in the statute required proof of a
subjective recklessness or malicious intent on the part of the defendant. The act of disconnecting
the gas meter alone was not enough to establish guilt; the prosecution had to demonstrate that the
defendant acted with the necessary mental state (mens rea) of malice or recklessness. As a result,
the defendant's conviction was upheld because the evidence showed that he acted with the
required malicious intent, and his actions resulted in endangering the victim's life.
LIST FIVE (5) LAW REPORTS USED IN THE STUDY AND PRACTICE OF
LAW
Law reporting is the process of publishing and recording judicial decisions and judgments from
courts of law. Different types of law reporting exist around the world, and they vary based on
factors such as jurisdiction, court system, and the level of official recognition. Here are some
common types of law reporting:
1. All England Law Report (All ER)
Page 75
2. Weekly Law Reports (WLR)
3. African Law Reports (ALR)
4. Commonwealth Law Reports (CLR)
5. New South Wales Law Reports (NSWLR)
6. South African Law Reports (SALR)
7. Sierra Leone Law Reports (SLLR)
DISTINGUISH BETWEEN AN EASEMENT AND A LISENCE

An easement and a license are both legal concepts that relate to the use of another person's
property, but they differ in nature, scope, and legal consequences. Here's a clear distinction
between the two:
1. Nature: An easement is a legal right that allows someone (known as the "dominant
owner" or "beneficiary") to use or enjoy another person's property (known as the
"servient owner" or "burdened property") in a particular way. It is a property interest and
is considered an encumbrance on the servient property. A license is a personal permission
or privilege granted by the owner of the property to another person (known as the
"licensee") to use the property in a specific way. It is not a property interest and does not
create any right or interest in the land.
2. Permanence: Easements are generally long-lasting and can be permanent, meaning they
continue to exist even if the properties change ownership. Licenses are generally
revocable at the will of the licensor (property owner). This means that the licensor can
withdraw or terminate the license at any time, without the licensee having any legal
recourse.
3. Transferability: Easements are transferable, which means if the dominant owner sells
their property, the easement usually passes to the new owner. Similarly, if the servient
property is sold, the new owner must respect the existing easement. A license is a
personal arrangement between the licensor and the licensee. It does not create any
interest in land and cannot be transferred to a third party.
4. Types: There are various types of easements, such as easements of way (right of passage),
easements of light (right to receive light through windows), and easements of support
(right to have the land supported by the neighboring property). A ticket to enter a sports
stadium, permission to park in someone's driveway, or a pass to enter a private club are
examples of licenses.
In summary, an easement is a legal right that allows someone to use another person's property in
a specific way, and it is a property interest that is generally permanent and transferable. On the
other hand, a license is a personal permission granted to use someone's property for a particular
purpose, and it is usually revocable and non-transferable.
Page 76
DISTINGUISH BETWEEN AN ESTATE AND A TENURE
In legal and property law contexts, "estate" and "tenure" are two related but distinct concepts
that refer to different aspects of property ownership and landholding. Here's a differentiation
between the two:
Estate
1. Definition: An estate refers to the total bundle of rights and interests that a person holds
in real property. It represents the level and scope of ownership a person has over the land
or property.
2. Duration: Estates can be of different durations, and they can be either freehold estates
(ownership for an indefinite period) or leasehold estates (possession for a fixed period
under a lease or tenancy agreement).
3. Transferability: Estates are generally transferable to others through various means, such
as sale, gift, or inheritance.
4. Examples: Freehold estates include fee simple absolute (full and unconditional
ownership) and life estates (ownership for the duration of a person's life or the life of a
specific individual). Leasehold estates include tenancies, where a person holds the right to
use the property for a limited time under a lease agreement.
Tenure
1. Definition: Tenure refers to the legal relationship between the owner (landlord or
grantor) and the holder of the estate (tenant or grantee). It defines the conditions and
terms under which the estate is held or transferred.
2. Nature: Tenure emphasizes the obligations, duties, and conditions attached to the holding
of the estate. It deals with the rights and responsibilities of the parties involved in the
landholding arrangement.
3. Historical Context: The concept of tenure has historical significance, especially in feudal
systems, where land was held from a superior lord or monarch in exchange for services or
other obligations.
4. Examples: Tenure can be seen in various landholding arrangements, such as feudal
tenures (land held in exchange for military or other services) or modern leasehold tenures
(where a tenant holds a property for a fixed term under a lease agreement with specific
conditions).
In summary, an estate refers to the actual rights and interests an individual holds in real property,
whether it's a freehold or leasehold. On the other hand, tenure refers to the legal relationship
between the owner and the holder of the estate, outlining the rights, obligations, and conditions
under which the property is held or transferred.
Page 77

Q&A Law School

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Q&A Law School

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Q&A Law School

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Q&A BOOK

SIERRA LEONE LAW SCHOOL

WHAT ARE FIVE (5) QUALITIES OF A LAWYER?

NAME FIVE (5) JUSTICES OF EACH LEVEL OF THE SUPERIOR

His Lordship, Hon. Justice Desmond Babatunde Edwards;

Justices of the Court of Appeal include:

WHO IS THE CURRENT MASTER & REGISTRAR OF SIERRA LEONE?

WHO IS THE CURRENT ATTORNEY GENERAL & MINISTER OF

WHO IS THE CURRENT PRESIDENT OF THE SIERRA LEONE BAR

WHO IS THE CURRENT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF SIERRA LEONE?

WHO IS THE CURRENT DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION OF

WHAT IS THE STRUCTURE OF THE COURT SYSTEM IN SIERRA LEONE

WHAT ARE THE SOURCES OF LAW IN SIERRA LEONE?

GIVE A BRIEF EXPLANATION ON YOUR DISSERTATION AND ITS

WHAT IS THE PRINCIPLE OF CAVEAT EMPTOR?

This principle is particularly important in transactions where there is an "as-is" or "without

WHAT IS THE PRINCIPLE OF HE WHO ASSERTS MUST PROVE?

WHAT IS THE BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL AND

WHAT ARE THE TURNBULL GUIDELINES?

WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SECTIONS 18 & 20 OF THE

WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT CRIMES PROVIDED FOR IN THE

EXPLAIN THE SALOMON PRINCIPLE IN COMPANY LAW

1. A company is a separate legal entity: Upon incorporation, a company becomes a distinct

STATE & EXPLAIN GENERAL DEFENCES IN CRIMINAL LAW

WHAT CONSTITUTES A SUCCESSFUL CLAIM OF SELF-DEFENSE?

EXPLAIN THE EGGSHELL-SKULL PRINCIPLE

CAN A PERSON SUE UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW?

EXPLAIN THE JUS COGENS AND OPINIO JURIS NORMS

EXPLAIN THE PRINCIPLE IN RYLANDS V FLETCHER

WHAT ARE THE OFFENCES TO PERSONS AND TO PROPERTY?

1. Assault: Intentionally causing the apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact

WHAT ARE THE VITIATING FACTORS IN CONTRACT LAW?

1. Misrepresentation: Misrepresentation occurs when one party makes an untrue statement

WHAT ARE THE TYPES OF MISTAKES IN CONTRACT LAW?

1. Fraudulent Misrepresentation: Fraudulent misrepresentation involves a deliberate and

DISCUSS THE COMPOSITIONS & JURISDICTIONS OF THE VARIOUS

WHAT IS THE BOHLAM PRINCIPLE?

WHAT ARE INCHOATE OFFENCES?

Here are some examples of inchoate offenses:

WHAT IS BURGLARY AND HOW IS IT DISTINCT FROM

WHAT CONSTITUTES A VALID CONTRACT BY LAW?

WHAT IS ACTUS REUS AND WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT CLASSES OF

WHAT IS MENS REA AND WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT CLASSES OF

WHAT ARE THE KINDS OF CONTRACTS?

WHAT IS THE CONCEPT OF PRIVITY OF CONTRACT?

STATE AND EXPLAIN ANY FIVE (5) MAXIMS OF EQUITY.

2. Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy:

4. Equity imputes an intention to fulfill an obligation:

6. Equity regards substance/intent rather than form:

7. Where there is equal equity, the law must prevail:

8. Equity acts in personam:

9. Delay defeats equity:

EXPLAIN HOW ONE CAN DISCHARGE A CONTRACT.

1. Planche v. Colburn (1831):

2. Hochster v. De La Tour (1853):

3. Taylor v. Caldwell (1863):

WHAT PROVISIONS IN THE 1991 CONSTITUTION UPHOLD THE

WHAT IS THE LARCENY ACT (1916) AND WHERE CAN IT BE

WHAT IS THE GENERAL RULE REGARDING ACCEPTANCE?

WHAT IS CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE?