Sorie K. Conteh & Others v Minister of Community Development & Others (SC APP 23 of 2005) [2006] SLSC 15 (10 November 2006)

i ———— ae yd : INTHE SUPREME COURT OF Siena LEONE | {ORIGINAL JURISDICTION n= INTHE MATTER OF SECTION 4

or TH CONST URES A 0 stern ay , AND INTHE MATTER OF THE E CHIEF OF BIRIWA HIE DOR Bones psec! TNE Nt : PRONINGE OF THE REPUBLIC OF SIERRA LEONE TET oe i 22 AUGUST 2006 . BETWEEN:

(1) DR. SORIE KENNED’ : *

(2) ALBERT CONTEH YCONTEH

(3) PRINCE AMADU. KALAWA q

(4) SALIFU MANNAH KALAWA

(5) ALHAJI KINGKOMA CONTEH

(6) FODAY BABA CONTEH : PLAINTIFFS AND _

(1) THE MINISTER OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - 15° DEFENDANT

(2) THE PROVINCIAL SECRETARY, NORTHERN PROVINCE. > 2° DEFENDANT .

(3) DR. ISSA M. SHERIFF - 3®° DEFENDANT 22C EAST BROOK STREET : FREETOWN. :

(4) THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND MINISTER OF JUSTICE > 4° DEFENDANT 1

(5) THE NATIONAL ELECTORAL zt | COMMISSION oe cere

Coram

HON, JUSTICE A.R.D. RENNER-THOMAS — - CHIEF JUSTICE HON, JUSTICE SIR JOHN MURIA Sb ee HON. MRS, JUSTICE V.AD.WRIGHT = YS HON, JUSTICE MR. MET. THOMPSON = 88 HON. MS. JUSTICE UH. TEJAN-JA\ F ) 4B. JENKINS-JOHNSTON ESQ. FOR THE PLAINTIF!

1 — eq — ; REW ESQ. : FM. CAI 1 Attorney. SESAY Esq. for tho ‘Defondanne nora OSMAN KANU Esq and ALIMAMY JUDGMENT DELIVERED THE (05, p DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2006. RENNER-THOMAS, C.J. This is an action commenced by an Origi » Originating Notice Hi Cee ceed te iecmlember, 2006 invoking the original jurediction of the Su rra Leone purs 7 Constitution, Act. No.6 of ige1, Svan" 10 Sections 124(1) and 127(1) of the The reliefs claimed by the Plaintiffs are the following:

“(1) A Declaration that any Election for the Office of Paramount Chief as provided for in Section 72(5) of the Constitution, IS A PUBLIC ELECTION, the conduct and supervision of which is the responsibility of the 5” Defendant herein, as provided by Section 33 of the said Constitution of Sierra Leone.

(2) A Declaration that the Election for the Office of Paramount Chief of

~-+ BIRIWA CHIEFDOM, Bombali District in the Northem Province of the Republic of Sierra Leone conducted by the 1% and 2% Defendants on the 12" August 2006 as a result of which the 3% Defendant was purportedly declared to be Elected as the - PARAMOUNT CHIEF of BIRIWA CHIEFDOM was conducted in contravention of Section 72(5) and Section 33 of the Constitution of Sierra Leone, and is therefore INVALID, NULL AND VOID.

(3) Consequent upon (2) above, FOR A Declaration that the Office of Paramount Chief of BIRIWA Chiefdom, Bombali District, in the Northern Province of Sierra Leone IS VACANT.

. (4) i) A Declaration that by Native Law and Custom and by

sf action, any person who does not belong to a Ruling House is not eligible to contest for and be elected as Paramount Chief of any Chiefdom in Sierra Leone.

i ion that DR. ISSA M. SHERIFF not being a «

0% Pier of any) of the Four(4) Established Ruling Houses of BIR je mbali District, Noithem Province of BIRIWA Chiefdom, Bo Sierra Leone is not eligible to contest for the Gifice of Paramount Chief of the said BIRIWA Chiefdom.

—S50 —

eo reen chee at Bonection to the office of Paramount Chiot of Republi of ‘Sierra ‘Leone shan’ [bebe idaocoes oy te Sierra Leone ona data te lt Section 33 of the Constitution of herein. lermined by the 5” Defendant (6) wen teil or other Orders or directions as may be considered and oo frets made 88 Orn he ects toca i al na by 2 an In addition to the affidavit of Dr. Sorie Kennedy Conteh, the first Plaintiff herein, sworn to on the 14™ day of September, 2008 and filed together with the Originating Notice: of Motion Counsel for the Plaintiff was given leave by the Court to rely also on the joint affidavit of the second to sixth Plaintiffs inclusive sworn to on the 6" day of October 2006 and filed. herein. On the 29" day of September 2006 the Statement of the Plaintiffs Case was filed together with the affidavit as required by Rule 90 (2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court, Constitutional Instrument No.1 of 1982. On the 10" day of October 2006, Osman Kanu, State Counsel as Solicitor for all the five Defendants herein fled a Statement of the Defendants case accompanied by the requisite affidavit Pursuant to Rule 92 (2) of the said Rules of the Supreme Court, . A date was fixed for the hearing and arguments commenced:on the 19" day of October 2006 and were concluded on the 20" day of October 2006. Though both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants did give an indication that they might be calling witnesses at the hearing no such witnesses were called. Put briefly, the case for the Plaintiffs, as | understand it, is

(6) For An Order that an Election to the office of Paramount Chief of BIRIWA Chiefdom, Bombali District in the Northern Province of the Republic of Sierra Leone shail be conducted and supervised by the 5” Defendant in accordance with Section 33 of the Constitution of Sierra Leone on a date to be determined by the 5” Defendant herein,

(6) For Any Further or other Orders or directions as may be considered giving effect to, or enabling effect to be given to the declarations and orders heretofore made.

(7) That the Costs of this Action shall be paid by the 1, 2% and 3% Defendants, such Costs to be taxed.”

In addition to the affidavit of Dr. Sorie Kennedy Conteh, the first Plaintiff herein, sworn to on the 14” day of September, 2006 and filed together with the Originating Notice of Motion Counsel for the Plaintiff was given leave by the Court to rely also on the joint affidavit of the second to sixth Plaintiffs inclusive sworn to on the 6" day of October 2006 and filed. herein.

‘On the 29" day of September 2006 the Statement of the Plaintiffs Case was filed _ together with the affidavit as required by Rule 90 (2) of the Rules of the Supreme. Court, Constitutionai Instrument No.1 of 1982. On the 10" day of October 2006, Osman Kanu, State Counsel as Solicitor for all the five Defendants herein filed a. Statement of the Defendants case accompanied by the requisite affidavit Pursuant to Rule 92 (2) of the said Rules of the Supreme Court.

A date was fixed for the hearing and arguments commenced on the 19" day of October 2006 and were concluded on the 20" day of October 2006. Though both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants did give an indication that they might be calling witnesses at the hearing no such witnesses were called.

Put briefly, the case for the Plaintiffs, as | understand it; is

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