Lamin Turay v Yayah Turay (CIVAPP 75/2023) [2026] SLCA 8 (21 July 2026)

spulZy, Civ. App 75/2023 Y B, ibe IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SIERRA LEONE dips, V bel SIGMA iA (CIVIL DIVISION) odres | FR BETWEEN TEC LAMIN TURAY - APPELLANT AND YAYAH TURAY : RESPONDENT

Coram

HON. MR. JUSTICE ABDULAI M. BANGURAH J.S.C (PRESIDING) HON. MRS. JUSTICE JAMESINA E. L. KING J.A. HON. MR. MICHAEL P. MAMIJ.A. Counsel: F.M. M. Sillah Esq for the Appellant

7. A. Kanu Esq. & M.A. Turay Esq. for the Respondent JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY THE HON. MRS. JAMESINA E. L. KING ON 21% JULY

Background

1. This matter relates to land at Mabap and Rochain in the Bombali District in the Northern Province of Sierra Leone, previously owned by Pa Bap Turay (Deceased Intestate).

2. The Appeal filed by the Respondent is on the following grounds: a

i, That the Learned Trial Judge erred in law and misdirected himself by delivering a ruling/judgment dated the 11" day of October 2023 in total disregard and in contravention to an earlier ruling delivered by the Hon. Mr. Justice Unisa Kamara J dated 27" day of October 2022 sitting as a judge in the same matter and on the same subject.

Particulars of Misdirection

The learned trial judge in his ruling dated 11" October, 2023 at pages 41 and 42 thereof ordered thus: Page 41: That the Applicant (now Appellant) and by extension his elder brother Pa Brima Turay who testified against their brother. (the Respondent herein) at the Local Court in respect of the estate of the late Pa Bap Turay at Manutha and Karefe, should not benefit and had in fact lost their beneficial interest in the property the moment they testified in the local court for the complainant, one John Fornah against the defendant herein who was the defendant in the matter at the local Court. Page 42: The Learned trial Judge further ordered that said two (2) portions of land for which the Respondent was sued by John Fornah at Manutha and Karefe belong to the Turay Family with the exclusion of the Applicant (now Appellant), his elder brother Pa Brima Turay, their children and their Children’s heirs and that the Respondent should effective immediately take possession of the management, control and affairs of the said 2 portions of land. The Honourable Mr. Justice Unisa Kamara J on page 3 of his ruling dated 27" October 2022 ruled that after a careful reflection on what was said in the locus in quo, it is clear that both parties (the Appellant and Respondent) are related by consanguinity and belong to a common ancestral root. He further ordered that both the Applicant (Appellant) and Respondent (Respondent) are beneficiaries of the estate of the Late Pa Bap Turay and therefore are entitled to benefit

from the estate. He further stated that the Applicant (Appellant) and Respondent (Respondent) being descendant of a common ancestral root are therefore obliged to benefit from the proceeds of sale of the estate of the late Pa Bap Turay which is the res in discuss.

ii, The learned trial judge erred in law and misdirected himself in granting leave to the Respondent to take over the control, management and affairs of the 2 portions of land at Manutha and Karefe belonging to the Turay Family effective immediately of the delivery of the judgment when there was no evidence to show that the Respondent had the locus standi or authority to assume such responsibility under section 10(1), (2), (3) and 4 of the Customary Land Rights Act, 2022 particularly part iv thereof, which is instructive on Family Land Title on rights of entitlements, Management and administration of Family Land in the provinces.

The Learned trial Judge in Order 4 of his judgment at page 42 made the

following order thus: Order

4. That the Respondent takes over the control, management and affairs of the said two (2) portions of land at Manutha and Karefe effective immediately of the delivery of this judgment.”

ili, The learned trial judge erred in law in disregarding the provisions of section 10(1), (2), (3) and 4 of the Customary Land Rights Act, 2022 particularly part iv thereof, which is instructive on Family Land Title on rights of entitlements, Management and administration of Family Land.

iv. The Learned Trial judge erred in law by extinguishing the rights of the appellant and his elder brother’s heirs and assigns from benefitting from the family land in sharp contrasts to the provisions of section 10 subsection 2 and 3 of the Customary Land Rights Act 2022.

v. The Learned Trial Judge erred in Law by placing reliance on a case law authority of Thomas v Thomas 1932 16LLRS above a Statute Law the said Customary Land Rights Act 2022.

vi. That the decision is against the weight of the evidence adduced. 4, Reliefs claimed by the Appellant are: 1, That the Ruling/Judgment of the High Court delivered by the Honourable Mr. Justice Mohamed Bawoh J. be set aside and that the previous ruling of Honourable Mr. Justice Unisa Kamara J be restored.

2. That the clarified Judgment of the Local Court dated 12"" November, 2022 be upheld by this Honourable court in addition to the ruling of Honourable Mr. Justice Unisa Kamara J. ‘Summary of Submissions of Counsel for the parties Counsel for the Appellant

5. He relied on his written submissions and highlighted the doctrine of stare decisis which he submitted was disregarded by the Learned Trial Judge Hon Justice Bawoh as his decision contravened an earlier ruling delivered by the Hon. Justice Unisa Kamara dated 27" October 2022 sitting as a judge in the same matter and on the same subject. He pointed out that the earlier Ruling stated that both the Appellant and Respondent had rights to the said property while the latter judgment appealed against went contrary to that

Decision

6. He relied on the Constitution of Sierra Leone Act No. 6 of 1991 that there is only one indivisible High Court of Justice in Sierra Leone, no matter where it sits, and its decisions ought to be treated with equality and have the same effect. He submitted that courts should be restrained from going against established practices and deviating from tested proven and established legal principles citing the case of Simon Shonhayi Denhere v Mutsa Denhere (nee Marange) and Attorney-General of Zimbabwe, Constitutional Application No. CCZ55/17.

7. He stated that the Learned trial judge failed to consider compelling statutory provisions namely the Customary Land Right Act No. 20 of 2022 section 10 thereof. This provision he submits is supported and or reinforced by the reasoning in one of the leading authorities in land law in Sierra

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