Yakuba Kamara and Others v Haja Zainab Jalloh (CC 13/2024) [2026] (6 October 2026)

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

BETWEEN: YAKUBA KAMARA AND OTHERS — Plaintiffs AND HAJA ZAINAB JALLOH — Defendant

Counsel: E.T. Koroma and Daniel Koroma for the plaintiffs. O. Jalloh and A.B.S. Kamara for the defendant.

Ruling of the Honourable Mr Justice Abdul Rahman Mansaray J, 6 October 2026. CC 13/2024. The file is CC 13/2024 on the face of the ruling. It is not CC 12/2024.

The application

1. The defendant seeks leave to restore the summons for directions and to admit additional documents, being correspondence between the defendant's solicitors and the Ministry of Lands, together with leave to subpoena Mr Tamba Dauda, Acting Professional Head and Director of Surveys and Lands.

2. Abu Bakarr Sorie Kamara's affidavit supports the application. The defendant says the documents were received from the Ministry of Lands following correspondence during the proceedings, and that the evidence is material to a complete determination. The defendant says the plaintiffs would suffer no prejudice because they are still presenting their case.

3. Mustapha Alfred Kamara's affidavit opposes the application. The plaintiffs say the Ministry of Lands report has been in the court bundle since the commencement of the proceedings, that the defendant had ample opportunity to investigate or challenge it before trial, and that the proposed documents are an attempt to question an official report already before the court. They say the application is dilatory and prejudicial.

The issue and analysis

4. The principal issue is whether the court should admit the additional documents and permit the proposed witness to attend. Courts have a broad discretion to admit further evidence where it may assist in arriving at the truth and in doing substantial justice. The overriding consideration is whether the evidence is relevant, material and necessary, balanced against prejudice to the opposing party.

5. The correspondence sought to be introduced comes from the Ministry of Lands, the same public authority responsible for the report already in the court bundle. The defendant says the responses were received only on 11 July 2025 and that the application was moved thereafter. Uncontested evidence in the defendant's further affidavit shows that counsel told the court of the intention to communicate with the Ministry and secured an adjournment for that purpose.

6. Delay alone is not necessarily fatal where the evidence appears relevant and any prejudice can be met by allowing the opposing party to respond. The court was not persuaded that admitting the correspondence would cause irreparable prejudice. Excluding potentially relevant evidence from the public authority at the centre of the dispute may hinder a full investigation.

7. On the subpoena of Mr Tamba Dauda, the court has a duty to receive the best available evidence. Where a witness can clarify official communications and records that are directly relevant, his testimony may assist.

The findings

8. The interests of justice favour admitting the proposed documents and the proposed witness. Weight, credibility and significance can be addressed in cross-examination and in the final evaluation of the evidence.

The orders

9. The defendant's application is granted:

1. The documents identified in paragraphs 2(i) to 2(v) of the summons are admitted into the court bundle.

2. The defendant is granted leave to subpoena Mr Tamba Dauda, Acting Professional Head and Director of Surveys and Lands, to testify at the trial.

3. The plaintiffs shall be at liberty to challenge the documents and any testimony through cross-examination and rebuttal evidence if so advised.

4. Costs shall be costs in the cause.

Honourable Mr Justice Abdul Rahman Mansaray J.