He said his application has exhibits attached to, such as contentious issues surrounding the subsistent marriage between Mabinty Timbo and coupled with Wuroh Tambo’s claim of lavishing forty thousand United State dollars on the Applicant’s child, marriage certificate and causing emotional distress on his person.
According to him, his application is seeking an order set out on the face of the motion and relies on the Section 103 paragraph B of the Constitution of Sierra Leone which was sworn to on the 5th Day of February 2016 by the Applicant, Nee Koroma.
He argued that, it was clearly stated in Justice Abdulai Ahmid Charm ruling that, Mabinty Timbo has no beneficial interest in the property situated at 57 Peninsular road, and that he did see that Mrs. Timbo is provided with a suitable accommodation until the matter is determined by the court, since issues surrounding their subsistent marriage were still pending.
The way, he went on the matter was decided did not in any way favoured his Client considering the fact that, there are special circumstances which the court should consider which at the same time warrant the stay of execution to be put on hold,
He added that both the Appellant and the Respondent are legally wedded wife and husband with marriage certificate to substantiate to the court, noting that it is very clear in Justice Charm ruling that, the Applicant did state that, if the court enforced the stay of execution order she would suffer unduly with her child.
On the other hand, Counsel Wuroh Timbo, A.B Koroma vehemently opposed to the application of lawyer Jenkins Johnston on the grounds that, he did not submit good reasons and grievance as to why the Appeal Court should not allow the stay of execution to be enforced as set standards of the court.
Lawyer Koroma said, a ruling was delivered on the matter in which Justice Charm ordered for him and Counsel for the Applicant by then to find a workable solution by providing a suitable accommodation for the Applicant until the matter is determined by the court.
He further argued that, the Applicant appealed against the ruling in the Appeal Court in which Justice Reginald Fynne also ruled that, the sum of two thousand five hundred united state dollars be given to the Applicant as rent to find a suitable alternative accommodation.
“We gave two thousand five hundred united state dollars to the Applicant through his Client as ordered by the court with a receipt, but the Applicant refused the money and the money has since been in the custody of the Deputy Master and Registrar of the court,” lawyer Koroma stated.
He said his submission is based on law and his learned colleague did not explain the legal threshold, such as reasons and grievance as the set standards, justifying why the court should not grant an order for the stay of execution to be executed.
Lawyer Koroma stated that his Client had constructed two houses before marrying the Applicant which was done in Islamic way and even the conveyance was prepared in the name of his Client alone including the circumstances leading to the pregnancy of the Applicant child.
At this stage, the three man panel of Judges comprised of Justice Deen Tarawalie, Justice Alusine Sesay and Justice E.B. Edwards adjourned the matter for ruling with notices to be sent to both Counsels.