Rev. Dr. Fr. Gabriel Koroma v Sheik M. Conteh (CIVAPP 61/2025) [2026] SLCA 10 (20 July 2026)

pS,

CIV.APP.61/2025 y fe ser

INTHE COURT OF APPEAL OF SIERRA LEONE SPER u BETWEEN: eaTESLOL HI REV.DR. FR. GABREL KOROMA —— APPELLANT Capi AND SHEIK MOHAMED CONTEH — 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: Dr. C.M.B, Jalloh Esq ~ for the Appellant B.S. Kamara Esq — for the Respondent JUDGMENT DELIVERED THIS 27° DAY OF JULY 2026

This Appeal was filed in this Court by Rev Fr. Gabriel Koroma, described on the face of the Notice of Appeal as "1st Appellant" and (hereafter called "the Appellant"), on the 16th October 2025, against the Ruling of the lower Court dated the 20th February 2024.

The Appellant's Co-defendant in the lower Court Musa Barrie, albeit described on the said Notice of Appeal as 2nd Appellant, did not by the contents of that process appeal against the said Ruling of that Court.

The grounds of appeal as contained in the Notice of Appeal(uneditted) are as follows:

1. That the Learned trial Judge(hereafter "the LTJ"), erred in law and in fact and misdirected himself by deciding that, the reliefs sought in the Application are not part of and do not reflect the pleadings, as our questions are squarely within our pleadings.

2. That the LT) misdirected himself in holding that the Application under Order 17 of the High Court Rules 2007 did not resolve the dispute of the Parties

3. That the LTJ failed to properly evaluate and consider the legal consequences of the Letters of Administration obtained by the Respondent, which concerns the legal capacity of the Respondent who commenced an action for the estate of a deceased under customary law

4. The decision of the presiding Judge is against the weight of the evidence.

The reliefs sought from this Court are that:

i). The Ruling of the lower Court dated the 22nd (i suppose he meant the 20th February 2024), be set aside and

ii). The action intituled CCO6/23 2023 C. No.2 Sheik Mohamed Conteh(Plaintiff) and Rev. Fr. Gabriel Koroma and Musa Barrie(Defendants), commenced by Writ of Summons dated and filed on the 16 March 2023 be stuck out on the basis that, the Plaintiff therein and the Respondent herein lacks the legal capacity to institute the said action and that the lower Court does not have jurisdiction to hear

and determine matters relating to title to land and the Administration of Estates of deceased persons governed by Customary law

ili), That the costs of this Appeal and those in the lower Court be borne by the Respondent.

BRIEF FACTS.

The substantive action still pending in the lower Court was commenced by a writ of summons dated and filed on the 16th March 2023, at the suit of the Respondent herein, holding himself out as Administrator of the estate of his deceased brother Brima Roke Conteh(hereafter "the intestate") against the Appellant herein and a Musa Barrie, The claims as set out in the said Writ of Summons are as follows:

i). Recovery of possession of land situate lying and being at Makeni Lunsar Highway Magbenteh Village Makeni City Makarie Chiefdom Bombali District in the North East province of the Republic of Soerra Leone.

ii). An interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendants, their Agents, proxies, servants, privies or howsoever called from interfering with, working, selling, transfering leasing or disposing of the said land or any potion of same pending the hearing and determination of the said action.

ili), Perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents servants privies or howsoever called from interfering, selling, transferring, leasing or disposing of the said land or any portion of same.

iv). Cancelation of any document whether site plan, sales agreement or title Deed the defendants purport to have for the said land.

v). Any other further Order as the Court may deem fit and just in the circumstances. vi). Costs.

The defendants therein and Appellant herein, by their Counsel entered an Appearance and gave Notice of that Appearance on the 22nd March 2023. On the 20th May 2023, they filed a defence and Counterclaim dated the 19th May 2023.

The Plaintiff On the 15th June 2023, filed a defence to the defendants’ Counterclaim, dated the 10th June 2023. On the 3rd October 2023, he filed summons for directions and the said directions as to the conduct of the action, were issued by the lower Court on the 12th October 2023, ordering both parties to exchange bundles, inter alia containing their pleadings, list of witnesses and their Statements, legal authorities and documents they intend to use and rely on at the trial. The matter was adjourned to the 26th October 2023 for hearing.

From the Records of appeal, the Plaintiff therein and Respondent herein, complied with the directions of the lower Court and filed his court bundle and served same on the defendants through their Counsel. The Defendants however defaulted in filing and service of their Court bundle.

Consequent upon their default aforesaid, the Plaintiff on the 10th November 2023, took out an Appellation in the lower Court inter alia praying that, the Defendants therein's' defence and Counterclaim be struck out for non compliance with the directions of the Court and for all the reliefs sought in their Writ of summons be granted.

Before the hearing of the above Application of the 10th November 2023, the defendants therein filed an Order 17 Application, for the matter to be determined on points of law, based on the answers to questions posed in the said Application. Inote that, the action in the lower Court, as it now seems to be the norm at the bar, was replete with otherwise avoidable interlocutory Applications, with the resultant hardship t

on the litigants and the annoying derailment of the course of the proceedings in that Court. Issues that can be discussed and resolved between Counsel are now frequently the subject matter of vexatious Applications, because Counsel do not want to talk to each other. What informs the dearth of fraternity at Bar these days is beyond me. It is highttime therefore that Courts took a dim view on this hostile and egoistic practice, by mulching Counsel with personal costs for such malafide and time wasting Applications.

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