Haja M. Kalokoh v Mrs. Neneh Kalokoh (CIVAPP 4/2025) [2026] SLCA 9 (21 July 2026)

CIV.APP.4/2025 PR

ean = IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SIERRA LEON c®

BETWEEN: a ge

HAJA MEMUNATU KALOKOH APPELLANT §agag

AND

MRS. NENEH KALOKOII — RESPONDENT

Coram

Hon. Mr, Justice Abdulai M. Bangurah — JSC (Presiding)

Hon. Mrs, Justice J.E.L.King JA

Hon. Mr. Justice M.P.Mami — JA

COUNSEL

B.S. Kamara l:sq - for the Appellant

1. Samba F'sq ~ for the Respondent

JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY THE HON.MR. JUSTICE A.M.

BANGURAI ~ JSC ON 215" JULY 2026

This matter came to us by way of an Appeal dated and filed on the 15th January 2025, against the Judgement of His Lordship the Hon Mohamed Bawoh J, delivered on the Sth December 2024, at the instance of Haja Memunatu Kalokoh the Appellant herein (and hereafter "the Appellant"). The grounds of appeal as stated in the Notice of Appeal filed herein are that: i)The Learned trial Judge(hereafter "the LTJ"), ought not to have heard the Originating Notice of Motion dated the 23rd October 2024 and filed by the Respondent herein and pursuant to which an Order of certiorari and other reliefs were granted, as there was no Order, warrant, commitment or conviction verified by an Affidavit that informs the Order of certiorari and thus contravened Order 52(8}(1) of The Court Rules 2007. ii):The LT) erred in law when he failed to take cognizance that, contentious probate issues should not be determined by an Originating Notice of Motion supported by an Affidavit for which the Hon. LTJ lacks jurisdiction. iii), That the Learned trial Judge erred in law when he erroneously relied on provisions of Section 9(1,2&5) of The Devolution of Estates Act 2007, to grant adverse orders against the Appellant, which said legislation is not applicable to family property held under Customary law, in contravention of Section 1(3) of the said Act. iv). That the LTJ erred in law when he deliberately or otherwise conferred an original jurisdiction on himself by determining issues touching and concerning the Administration of the estate of deceased intestate, bordering on or governed by Customary law, contravening Section 21(b) of the Courts Act 1965. v}. The Decision of the LTJ is against the weight of the evidence. The reliefs sought from this Court are that, the decision of the LTJ be set aside and a declaration that, the local Court is the proper forum to determine most of the issues determined by the High Court. And that consequent upon the above, judgement be entered for the Appellant and costs awarded by the lower Court be refunded if already paid.

And any other further Orders as the Court deems fit and just under the circumstances.

Costs

BRIEF FACTS. This matters relates to a portion of the estate of one Pa Alhaji Osman Kalokoh deceased intestate(and hereafter "the Intestate"), situate lying and being at Nos. 32 and 34 Dr. Vincent Kanu Road (formerly Station Road) Makeni Bombali District in the North East province of the Republic of Sierra Leone. The Appellant is one of thirty six children of the Intestate and the Respondent is the lawful widow of one of his children a Abdul Sanpha Kalokoh, also now deceased intestate. The Respondent alleges that, her deceased husband's father the Intestate sometime in 1984, shared his property aforesaid amongst his several wives. And that the portion now in dispute was given to her late husband as his late morher share, who had died before the sharing. That subsequent to the allocation of that portion of the Intestate's estate to her husband, they moved into same, from No.11 Kamal Street where they were resident and had all their three children in the said premises. They had peaceable enjoyment of the premises, until the demise of the Intestate Pa Alhaji Osman Kalokoh in 1991. The Respondent continued that, following the death of the Intestate, she and her husband came under immense pressure and harassment from the Appellant and her cohorts, to vacate the said property in issue. The Appellant on her part contends that, the Respondent was her late brother's paramour, as they were never married. That property in issue situate at No 32 Dr. Vincent Kanu Road Makeni, was never allocated to her said deceased brother Abdul Sanpha Kalokoh. And that Respondent and her said deceased brother, cohabited in only one of three rooms in that apartment and that the other two rooms were reserved for visitors,

She asserted that, her late brother Abdul Sanpha Kalokoh was had out of wedlock, as her father the intestate was never married to his mother. Therefore no portion of the intestate's estate was allotted to his said mother, who was never a wife to her deceased father the Intestate. The Respondent asserted that, the harrasment and intimidation became so intense that, she and her family fearful of their safety, moved out out of the property and went back to number 11 Kamal Street, where her husband died. They however maintained control of the property at No. 32 Dr Vincent Road, notwithstanding that, each time they attempt renting same, the prospective tenants were frightened by the Appellant and her supporters. The Appellant eventually barricaded the property (hereafter "the disputed property"), by welding the entrance to same. Consequent upon the foregoing, the Respondent made a Report at the FSU division of the police in Makeni against the Appellant, who in turn made a counter Report against the Respondent and two of her children. The police attempted mediating between the parties without success. Charges were therefore preferred against both sides. In the Course of the trial, the Magistrate Ordered the Appellant to open the property by removing the welding and the Respondent to handover the keys to same, to the Appellant to effect repairs and renovate the property, change the locks and thereafter surrender the keys to the Court. The Respondent herein being aggrieved by that Order of the Magistrate, filed an Originating Notice of Motion in the High Court, seeking to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of that Court over Magistrate Courts. The High Court heard the said Application and delivered judgement on the Sth day of December 2024, in favour of the Respondent herein. The Appellant's Counsel first sought leave to appeal to this Court against that judgement by an application dated the 10th December 2024. He however on hindsight i suppose, abandoned that Application and filed the Appeal now before us as of right.

The pages read for this report end here. The judgment continues in the PDF.