Jurisdiction: Sierra Leone (common law jurisdiction)
Court: High Court of Sierra Leone, Land and Property Division
Presiding Judge: Hon. Mr Justice Abdul Rahman Mansaray J
Date of Ruling: 28 May 2025
Case Number: CC 173/2016 (G. No. 3)
Legal Area(s): Land law (title, possession, trespass); civil procedure (interlocutory injunctions, default judgment, case management directions)
Tags: American Cyanamid test; serious issue to be tried; balance of convenience; adequacy of damages; undertaking in damages; mandatory vs prohibitory injunction; Order 35 rule 9; Order 13 rule 7; leave to enter judgment; possession; demolition; perpetual injunction; speedy trial directions

Style of Cause

Between:
Arnold Bishop-Gooding (14 Guard Room/Spur Road) … Plaintiff/Applicant

And:
Gibrilla Kanu … 1st Defendant/Respondent
Jacob Sesay … 2nd Defendant/Respondent
Nicolas Sowa … 3rd Defendant/Respondent
Kekeh Tomma … 4th Defendant/Respondent
Mariama Sesay … 5th Defendant/Respondent
Mariama Sahid … 6th Defendant/Respondent
Mohamed Bangura … 7th Defendant/Respondent
Adama Kamara … 8th Defendant/Respondent
Adam A. Sesay … 9th Defendant/Respondent
Mariama Sesay … 10th Defendant/Respondent
Alusine Gube … 11th Defendant/Respondent
Hassan Wurie … 12th Defendant/Respondent
Mamadu Jalloh … 13th Defendant/Respondent
(all described as being of Borbor Farm, Regent Village)

Legal Representatives (as recorded)

• For the Plaintiff/Applicant: T. Kamara and V. O. Coker

• For the 4th Defendant/Respondent: A. Kondowa, Y. S. Dugba, B. Sannoh, S. I. Jalloh, and P. SegePoh Thomas

Legal Areas 

Land dispute, fee simple conveyance, competing leasehold claim, interlocutory injunction, American Cyanamid principles, serious issue to be tried, balance of convenience, adequacy of damages, undertaking in damages, mixed relief (mandatory and prohibitory), refusal of mandatory injunction where it would amount to eviction, Order 35 rule 9 High Court Rules 2007, default judgment procedure, Order 13 rule 7 High Court Rules 2007, leave to enter judgment where defendants fail to enter appearance, possession, damages for trespass, perpetual injunction, demolition, case management and speedy trial directions.

Procedural Posture

The ruling determined two notices of motion brought by the plaintiff/applicant:

1. Motion dated 28 November 2024: application for injunctive relief against the 4th defendant. It was supported by the affidavit of Arnold Bishop-Gooding. The 4th defendant contested the application and filed an affidavit in opposition (sworn 9 January 2025). No affidavit in reply was filed.

2. Motion dated 22 January 2025: application for leave to enter judgment against all defendants except the 4th defendant, pursuant to Order 13 rule 7(1). It was supported by affidavit sworn by the plaintiff on the same date. None of the affected defendants filed opposition.

The court considered the applications in sequence.

Material Facts (as accepted for the purposes of the motions)

• The dispute concerns land described as Borbor Farm, off Regent/Grafton Road, Regent Village, in the Western Area.

• The plaintiff relied on a conveyance dated 30 September 1985 as evidence of fee simple ownership (exhibit ABG1).

• The plaintiff also relied on a predecessor’s title said to trace back to a conveyance dated 1 December 1932 in the name of Jonas W. B. Roberts (exhibit ABG2).

• The 4th defendant relied on a leasehold title exhibited in the affidavit in opposition (exhibit AMSK2), and asserted an interest and residence on the land with his family.

• The 4th defendant deposed that his mother built a structure on the land, exhibited as AMSK4.

• The plaintiff characterised the defendants as trespassers and sought to restrain building and dealings on the land.

Issues for Determination

A. Motion dated 28 November 2024 (injunction)

1. Whether there was a serious issue to be tried between the parties.

2. Where the balance of convenience lay.

3. Whether damages would be an adequate remedy, including the relevance of an undertaking in damages.

4. Whether the court should grant mandatory relief (in substance, removal or eviction) or only a preventive (prohibitory) injunction.

B. Motion dated 22 January 2025 (leave to enter judgment)

1. Whether the plaintiff satisfied the requirements of Order 13 rule 7 for leave to enter judgment against defendants who failed to enter appearance.

2. Whether the relief claimed in the writ fell within the character contemplated by Order 13 rule 7.

Arguments of the Parties (in substance)

Plaintiff/Applicant

• On the injunction, counsel relied on the plaintiff’s conveyance (1985) and submitted the plaintiff had long-standing fee simple ownership, and that the 4th defendant’s leasehold could not stand against a fee simple title.

• Counsel submitted the 4th defendant had no right to remain on the property and should be restrained.

• On the second motion, counsel submitted defendants were duly served, failed to appear or defend, and the court should grant leave to enter judgment pursuant to Order 13 rule 7.

4th Defendant/Respondent

• Counsel submitted the 4th defendant lived on the land with his family and this was not controverted by any affidavit in reply.

• The 4th defendant relied on a leasehold interest and on factual assertions of occupation and structures.

Decision / Judgment

1. On the injunction motion (28 November 2024): the court found a serious issue to be tried but granted the application only in part, granting a preventive injunction and refusing the mandatory aspect.

2. On the motion for leave to enter judgment (22 January 2025): the court granted leave to enter judgment against the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th to 13th defendants (excluding the 4th), and granted substantive reliefs including possession, damages, demolition, and perpetual injunction.

3. Directions: the court ordered a speedy trial against the 4th defendant and made detailed case management directions for disclosure, witness statements, and preparation of a court bundle, with a compliance date fixed.

Court’s Reasoning

A. Interlocutory injunction (American Cyanamid principles)

1. Serious issue to be tried

• The court treated the threshold as whether the claim was not frivolous or vexatious. Competing claims to the same land, with the plaintiff asserting fee simple title and the 4th defendant producing a leasehold document (AMSK2), plainly raised a serious question for trial.

• The judge expressly applied Lord Diplock’s guidance that the court at this stage does not determine likelihood of success or resolve conflicts of evidence, but asks whether there is a serious question to be tried.

2. Balance of convenience

• The court analysed the practical consequences of the relief sought. In land matters, interlocutory relief can be both preventive (stopping further acts) and mandatory (requiring removal or eviction).

• The court found that granting the mandatory aspect would effectively amount to evicting the 4th defendant and his relatives from the land, which was too drastic at an interlocutory stage.

• To maintain a fair balance, the court modified the relief, granting only the preventive injunction.

3. Adequacy of damages and undertakings

• For completeness, the court held that damages would be an adequate remedy in the event the 4th defendant succeeded at trial after being restrained, because the loss occasioned by stopping construction or dealings was quantifiable.

• The court noted that the plaintiff indicated a proposed undertaking to compensate the 4th defendant if the 4th defendant succeeded at trial, and treated this as consistent with the applicable procedural rules.

B. Leave to enter judgment (Order 13 rule 7)

• The court set out the text of Order 13 rule 7(1) and (2) and explained that it applies where the claims in the writ are of a different character from those addressed by rules 2 to 6, including where an endorsement includes a claim for an account or an injunction.

• The court accepted the plaintiff’s evidence that the defendants were duly notified but failed to enter appearance, and concluded that the writ fell within Order 13 rule 7.

• On the evidence of registered title deeds (1985 conveyance and predecessor’s 1932 conveyance), and in the absence of any contrary registered deed from the defaulting defendants, the court granted the claims on the balance of probability.

Key Quotations (short extracts)

• On the threshold test: “The court… must be satisfied that the claim is not frivolous or vexatious… there is a serious question to be tried.”

• On the interlocutory approach: the court emphasised it is not the function of the court at this stage to resolve conflicts of evidence as to fact.

Ratio Decidendi

1. In applications for interlocutory injunctions in Sierra Leone, the court applies the American Cyanamid framework, asking whether there is a serious issue to be tried, where the balance of convenience lies, and whether damages are an adequate remedy.

2. Where the relief sought is mixed (mandatory and preventive), and a mandatory order would effectively determine the dispute at the interlocutory stage by removing an occupier, the court may refuse the mandatory element and grant a narrower preventive injunction to preserve the position pending trial.

3. An applicant’s willingness to provide an undertaking in damages supports the court’s assessment of the adequacy of damages and the fairness of granting preventive relief.

4. Where defendants fail to enter appearance and the writ includes reliefs of a character contemplated by Order 13 rule 7, the court may grant leave to enter judgment upon proof of service and the court’s satisfaction, on the evidence, that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed.

Obiter Dictum

• The judge’s discussion indicates a preference for tailored interlocutory relief in land disputes, to avoid interlocutory orders that function as a final determination.

Final Orders / Reliefs Granted

1. Orders on the motion dated 22 January 2025 (defaulting defendants)

Leave was granted to enter judgment against the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, and 13th defendants, and the court ordered:

a. Recovery of possession of several portions of the plaintiff’s land within Borbor Farm.

b. Damages for wrongful entry and damage assessed at NLe 50,000, jointly and or severally against those defendants.

c. Demolition and removal of structures on the property within three months.

d. Perpetual injunction restraining those defendants from entering or crossing the farm, building structures, or selling any portion.

e. Immediate removal of “pan body” structures, foundations, and columns, and restoration to the status quo ante.

f. Costs of the motion dated 22 January 2025 against those defendants, jointly and or severally.

2. Orders relating to the 4th defendant (interlocutory relief)

The 4th defendant, by himself and agents (including builders and surveyors), was restrained from entering into, taking persons onto, offering for sale, disposing of, or continuing construction on the land pending the hearing and determination of the action.

3. Costs of the injunction motion

Costs of the motion dated 28 November 2024 were ordered to be in the cause.

4. Speedy trial directions against the 4th defendant

The court ordered expedited steps including:

1. List of documents and verifying affidavits within 14 days.

2. Service of copies of relevant documents within 14 days.

3. Plaintiff to set down the action for trial within 7 days.

4. Exchange of witness statements within 21 days.

5. 4th defendant to identify central documents for the bundle within 14 days after the matter is set down.

6. Plaintiff to prepare a court bundle within 28 days, including pleadings, summary of issues, nature of evidence, list of witnesses, and chronology.

7. Liberty to restore for further directions.

8. Mention date fixed for Thursday 26 June 2025 to ensure compliance and to fix a date for trial.

Commentary / Practice Note

1. Mandatory relief at interlocutory stage: This ruling illustrates that a mandatory injunction in a land case, where it would effectively dispossess an occupier, is unlikely unless the circumstances clearly justify such an exceptional step.

2. Precision in the relief sought: Where the applicant seeks both to restrain ongoing acts (construction, sale, disposition) and to remove persons already in occupation, the court may split the relief, granting only what preserves the res pending trial.

3. Undertaking in damages: The proposed undertaking helped frame the dispute as one where damages for interim restraint would be measurable, supporting a preventive injunction.

4. Default judgment strategy: Where multiple defendants fail to enter appearance, Order 13 rule 7 provides a route for obtaining leave to enter judgment, but counsel should ensure strict compliance with service and notice requirements.

5. Case management discipline: The detailed directions underscore the court’s expectation that land disputes proceed to trial promptly once interim protections are in place.

Cases and Statutes or Other Laws Referred To in the Ruling

A. Case law

1. American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] 1 All ER 510 (guidelines for interlocutory injunctions, including serious issue, balance of convenience, adequacy of damages).

B. Sierra Leone statutes, rules, procedural materials

1. High Court Rules 2007: Order 35 (including rule 9(1) and (2) as referenced, on undertakings and interlocutory injunction practice).

2. High Court Rules 2007: Order 13 rule 7(1) and (2) (leave to enter judgment where defendant fails to enter appearance, and notice requirement).

3. High Court Rules 2007: Order 40 rule 2(9) (referenced in directions relating to documents for inclusion in the court bundle).

4. Supreme Court Annual Practice 1999 (cited as illustrative guidance on the scope of Order 13 rule 7).

C. Other materials

• The ruling refers generally to “several case law authorities” in addition to American Cyanamid, but they are not identified by name.

Tags and Categories

Categories: Land and property; Civil procedure; Remedies
Tags: interlocutory injunction; mandatory vs prohibitory relief; undertaking in damages; default judgment; case management directions.