Rabie Zayat v The Administrator and Registrar-General and Alie Tahini (MISC APP 59/2025) [2026] (6 October 2026)

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

IN THE MATTER OF THE CONVEYANCING ACT 1881 AND 1882 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE REGISTRATION OF INSTRUMENTS ACT, CAP 256, AS AMENDED BY THE REGISTRATION OF INSTRUMENTS (AMENDMENT) ACT, NO. 6 OF 1964 AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR THE EXPUNGEMENT OF A REGISTERED DEED OF CONVEYANCE

BETWEEN: RABIE ZAYAT — Plaintiff / respondent AND THE ADMINISTRATOR AND REGISTRAR-GENERAL — Defendant / respondent AND ALIE TAHINI — Applicant / proposed intervener / interested party

Counsel: O. Jalloh and F.I. Bockarie for the plaintiff / respondent. S. Gassama for the defendant / respondent. B.E.T. Cummings for the applicant.

Ruling of the Honourable Mr Justice Abdul Rahman Mansaray J, 6 October 2026. MISC. APP 59/2025.

The application

1. Alie Tahini seeks joinder, an order setting aside the orders of this court dated 7 May 2025 and 16 June 2025, a stay of execution of those orders, and such further orders as may be just. The application is supported by the affidavit of Ibrahim Komkanda Bangura, sworn on 25 August 2025, and a further affidavit in reply by Alan Williams.

2. The plaintiff opposes through the affidavit of Rabie Zayat, sworn on 17 September 2025. The Administrator and Registrar-General oppose through the affidavit of Roland Ibrahim Samura and the supplementary affidavit of Joseph Brima Mallah.

The background

3. The plaintiff sought expungement of a deed of conveyance allegedly dated 30 July 1981 and registered in Volume 331 at Page 96, and of all instruments deriving title from it.

4. On 7 May 2025 the court ordered expungement of the impugned conveyance and subsequent instruments. That order was amended on 16 June 2025.

5. The applicant says his vesting deed dated 30 May 2022, registered as No. 187/2022 in Volume 2 at Page 37, derives title from the conveyance affected by those orders, and that he was neither served nor joined, although his proprietary interests were directly affected.

6. The plaintiff and the Administrator and Registrar-General maintain that Land Registry investigations showed the 1981 deed had been inserted into the records outside normal registration procedures, exhibited visible irregularities, and was considered inauthentic.

The Issues

7. Whether the applicant is a necessary or proper party. Whether the orders of 7 May 2025 and 16 June 2025 were made in breach of natural justice. Whether the applicant has established grounds for setting those orders aside ex debito justitiae. And whether the authenticity of the disputed conveyance should be decided on this application.

Joinder of necessary parties

8. Persons whose legal rights may be directly affected by a decision ought ordinarily to be joined. In Amon v Raphael Tuck & Sons Ltd [1956] 1 QB 357, Devlin J stated that a necessary party is one whose rights may be directly affected by the order sought. The principle has been applied in Sierra Leone where proceedings may affect property rights.

9. A decision affecting proprietary rights without hearing the holder risks injustice and a multiplicity of actions. Section 23 of the Constitution of Sierra Leone 1991 guarantees a fair hearing before rights and obligations are determined.

Natural justice

10. Audi alteram partem remains foundational. In Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40 the House of Lords reaffirmed that a decision affecting rights, made without hearing the affected party, is ordinarily void. In Anlaby v Praetorius (1888) 20 QBD 764 it was held that no order should deprive a person of rights without an opportunity to be heard.

11. Courts in Nigeria, Ghana, The Gambia and Sierra Leone have applied the same principle. The Supreme Court of Nigeria in Adigun v Attorney-General of Oyo State (1987) 1 NWLR (Pt. 53) 678 observed that once a denial of fair hearing is established, the correctness of the decision becomes immaterial.

12. The ECOWAS Court, including in SERAP v Federal Republic of Nigeria, has stressed that decisions affecting legal interests must respect due process and equal participation. Those principles accord with Article 7 of the African Charter.

Setting aside orders ex debito justitiae

13. The jurisdiction to set aside an order made in breach of natural justice is inherent. In Craig v Kanssen [1943] KB 256, Lord Greene MR observed that an order obtained where affected persons were denied a hearing may be set aside as of right.

14. In Lazarus Estates Ltd v Beasley [1956] 1 QB 702 the court recognised the inherent power to prevent abuse where procedural irregularity undermines the legitimacy of a decision.

The analysis

15. The orders did not merely concern an abstract registry entry. They extended to instruments deriving title from the disputed conveyance. The applicant's vesting deed of 30 May 2022 is alleged to derive from that conveyance. The orders directly affect a registered instrument held by the applicant.

16. The notice of motion specifically challenges the expungement of that vesting deed. A person whose registered instrument may be removed from the public record is not a stranger. The applicant was a necessary party.

17. The applicant asserts that neither the originating summons nor the application for amendment was served on him. The plaintiff's affidavit does not demonstrate service. It contends that the Administrator and Registrar-General, as custodian of the records, was the proper party.

18. A custodian of records and the beneficiary of a registered instrument are not the same person. The Registrar-General may have administrative custody of the records but does not hold the proprietary interest. An order expunging a document may be administrative in form and proprietary in consequence.

19. The record discloses no evidence that the applicant was allowed to contest the allegations of fraud, irregular registration, inauthenticity, or the request for expungement. He was deprived of the opportunity to be heard. That omission breached the audi alteram partem rule.

20. The respondents rely on investigations showing that registration of the disputed conveyance did not comply with normal procedures and that the entries contained inconsistencies. These are serious allegations.

21. Evidence of irregularity does not eliminate the affected person's right to be heard. The more serious the allegation, the stronger the need for procedural fairness. The Registrar-General has statutory responsibilities under the Registration of Instruments Act. Whether a document is invalid, fraudulent, or liable to expungement is a judicial determination. Before it is made, the person asserting title under the instrument must ordinarily be heard.

22. The court declined to determine authenticity on this application. The affidavits disclose disputes, including registration-number discrepancies (915/81, 975/81 and 976/81), the significance of certified copies, the effect of NRA endorsements, alleged procedural irregularities, and the consequences of a document remaining in the registry for over four decades.

23. Those questions require full evidence. This application concerns procedural fairness, not a final determination of title. The court made no definitive finding on authenticity or ownership.

The findings

24. The applicant has a direct and substantial interest. The orders of 7 May 2025 and 16 June 2025 directly affect his registered vesting deed. He was not joined and was not heard before those orders were made. The failure to hear him was a breach of natural justice and fair hearing. The orders cannot safely stand and fall to be set aside ex debito justitiae. (The ruling numbers these conclusions (i), (ii), (iii), (vi) and (v), in that order.)

The orders

25. The court ordered:

1. Alie Tahini is added as a defendant to MISC. APP. 59/25.

2. The orders dated 7 May 2025 and the amending order dated 16 June 2025 are set aside in their entirety ex debito justitiae.

3. The Administrator and Registrar-General is ordered immediately to restore the vesting deed dated 30 May 2022, registered as No. 187/2022, Volume 2, Page 37, and its corresponding roots, to the Record Books of Conveyances.

4. The plaintiff shall serve the amended originating summons and all supporting affidavits on the newly joined defendant within seven days.

5. The matter is adjourned to Tuesday 27 October 2026 at 10:00 a.m.

6. Costs of this application shall be costs in the cause.

Honourable Mr Justice Abdul Rahman Mansaray J.