Mohamed Borbor Bah v Mohamed T. Khan and Others (CC 426/2025) [2026] (6 October 2026)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SIERRA LEONE (LAND, PROPERTY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION)

BETWEEN: MR MOHAMED BORBOR BAH — Plaintiff / applicant AND MR MOHAMED T. KHAN, MR SAMUEL GEORGE, MADAM ISATU, MR MAMOUDU BAH AND RUGIATU KANU — Defendants / respondents

Counsel: A. Aziz Bah for the plaintiff / applicant. R.A. Nylander for the defendants / respondents.

Ruling of the Honourable Mr Justice Abdul Rahman Mansaray J, 6 October 2026. CC 426/2025.

The introduction

1. By an ex parte notice of motion dated 22 September 2025, the plaintiff seeks an interim and interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from continuing construction, entering upon, remaining on, disposing of, or otherwise interfering with a parcel of land at Peninsula Road, Black Johnson, Western Area, which he says he owns under a deed of conveyance dated 13 November 2023, registered as No. 3037/2023 in Volume 970 at Page 39 of the Record Book of Conveyances.

2. The plaintiff also sought substituted service of the writ and related processes. That order was granted. The application is supported by the plaintiff's affidavit and opposed by the affidavit of the first defendant, sworn on behalf of all the defendants. The plaintiff filed an affidavit in reply. The issue is whether the plaintiff has satisfied the principles governing interlocutory injunctive relief pending trial.

The background

3. The plaintiff claims ownership and alleges that the defendants have unlawfully entered and commenced construction. He says they are trespassers and that, unless restrained, they will continue altering the character of the land.

4. The defendants deny trespass. The first defendant says he purchased the property in or about 2009, caused it to be surveyed, obtained a conveyance, entered into possession, and later sold portions to the other defendants.

5. The defendants further say the land falls within an area under the National Protected Area Authority and Conservation Trust Fund (NPAA and CTF), from whom they obtained authorisation to continue occupation.

6. The plaintiff contests the defendants' title. He says the conveyance relied on by the first defendant is neither duly registered nor in the records of the Administrator and Registrar-General, and he relies on correspondence from that office to that effect.

7. The plaintiff contends that the NPAA and CTF have no authority to determine ownership of private land or to confer proprietary rights over land surveyed and processed through the Ministry of Lands.

The issues for determination

8. Whether there is a serious question to be tried. Whether damages would be an adequate remedy. Where the balance of convenience lies. And whether the justice of the case requires preservation of the status quo pending trial.

The applicable law

9. The leading authority remains American Cyanamid Co. v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC

396. The court should not, at the interlocutory stage, finally determine disputed rights. It considers whether there is a serious question to be tried, whether damages would be adequate, where the balance of convenience lies, and whether the status quo should be maintained.

10. Those principles have been applied in Sierra Leone, Ghana, Nigeria and The Gambia. In Films Rover International Ltd v Cannon Film Sales Ltd [1987] 1 WLR 670, Hoffmann J said the court should adopt the course which appears to involve the least risk of injustice.

11. The Supreme Court of Nigeria in Kotoye v Central Bank of Nigeria (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 98) 419 emphasised that interlocutory injunctions exist to preserve rights pending determination and to prevent a successful litigant from obtaining an empty judgment.

12. Section 23 of the Constitution of Sierra Leone 1991 guarantees a fair hearing in the determination of civil rights and obligations. Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights protects access to justice and effective remedies.

13. The ECOWAS Court has emphasised that judicial processes should remain effective and that pending disputes should not be rendered nugatory by unilateral action before final adjudication.

The analysis

14. The threshold is intentionally low. The plaintiff need not prove ownership. He relies on a registered conveyance and says the land was processed through the Ministry of Lands and registered at the Office of the Administrator and Registrar-General.

15. The defendants assert a competing claim dating from 2009 and say they have occupied the land for a considerable period. The plaintiff contests the authenticity and registration of the first defendant's conveyance and exhibits correspondence said to come from the Registrar-General's office.

16. These assertions raise serious triable issues: the validity of the plaintiff's registered title; the validity of the defendants' alleged conveyance; the consequences of any failure of registration; the effect of occupation since 2009; the authority, if any, of the NPAA and CTF; and whether the defendants are trespassers or lawful occupiers. The first limb of American Cyanamid is satisfied.

17. The defendants say they occupy the land and that an injunction would cause serious hardship, even rendering them homeless. The injunction sought is not a final order of eviction. The court is not presently determining ownership.

18. The plaintiff alleges ongoing construction, including construction continuing notwithstanding an earlier interim order. Where construction continues on disputed land, damages often cease to be adequate: the character of the land changes, third-party interests may arise, and enforcement of a future judgment becomes more complex.

19. The plaintiff avers that ongoing construction is destroying the topography and may impose significant restoration expense if he succeeds. The court was not persuaded that damages alone would adequately protect the plaintiff.

20. The defendants rely on authorisation from the NPAA and CTF. Mr R.A. Nylander submitted that the injunction would undermine the Authority and referred to several Acts of Parliament.

21. At this stage the court cannot determine the legal effect of those documents. Questions remain about the statutory authority of the NPAA and CTF, whether it extends to occupation rights, whether it can defeat a registered conveyance, and whether the land lies within a protected area. Those matters require evidence and argument at trial.

22. The balance of convenience favours preservation. If the injunction is refused and the plaintiff succeeds, the land may have been built upon, transferred, subdivided or otherwise altered. If the injunction is granted and the defendants succeed, the prejudice is a temporary restraint on further development.

23. The plaintiff undertook to be bound by the usual undertaking as to damages. Applying Films Rover, preserving the property carries the least risk of injustice.

24. The court is not yet deciding who owns the land. It is deciding whether the land should be kept substantially intact until ownership is determined.

25. Given the competing title claims, the allegations of continuing construction, and the unresolved questions of registration and authority, preservation is prudent and necessary.

The findings

26. The plaintiff has established a serious issue to be tried. The parties assert competing proprietary claims. Damages would not be an adequate remedy if the land continues to be altered. The balance of convenience favours preservation. The interests of justice require maintenance of the status quo pending final determination.

The orders

27. The court ordered:

1. An interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants, whether by themselves, their servants, agents, privies or assigns, from continuing construction upon, entering further upon, selling, transferring, leasing, alienating, disposing of, or otherwise interfering with the parcel of land described in the writ of summons, pending the hearing and determination of this action.

2. The plaintiff's undertaking as to damages shall remain binding until further order.

3. The substantive action shall be expedited and fixed for case management within twenty-eight days, including exchange of documents within 14 days, court bundles within 28 days, liberty to restore, the plaintiff to set the action down for trial no later than Tuesday 27 October 2026, and the matter to come back before the court on Tuesday 3 November 2026 at 10:00 a.m. to ensure compliance and fix a date for trial.

4. Costs shall be costs in the cause.

Honourable Mr Justice Abdul Rahman Mansaray J.