Jurisdiction: Sierra Leone
Court: High Court of Sierra Leone, Land Property and Environment Division
Presiding Judge: Hon. Mr Justice Abdul Rahman Mansaray J
Date of ruling: 21 May 2025
Case number: CC. 49/2024 (H. No. 1)
Neutral citation: [2025] SLHCLPED 1
Legal area(s): Civil Procedure, trial practice, witness statements, admissibility of evidence
Tags: Order 30, witness statements as evidence in chief, leave of court, consent, adducing new matters, objection sustained

Style of cause

Between: HMW Trading and Supplies (Plaintiff/Respondent)
And: Abibatu Kamara (1st Defendant/Respondent), Sheku Yansaneh (2nd Defendant/Applicant)

Counsel (legal representatives)

• For the Plaintiff/Respondent: O. Jalloh, A. Kamara

• For the 2nd Defendant/Applicant: M. P. Fofanah, I. Bah

Catchwords

Civil procedure, objection during evidence in chief, Order 30 rule 1(9)(a) and (b) High Court Rules 2007, witness statements, adducing evidence not contained in statement, “may” as discretionary but not absolute, consent or leave required, court’s override power under Order 30 rule 2, objection sustained.

Procedural posture

This was an interlocutory ruling made in the course of trial. While the 2nd defendant (DW1, Sheku Yansaneh) was giving evidence in chief, the plaintiff objected to a line of questioning said to introduce matters not contained in the served witness statement, contrary to Order 30 rule 1(9)(b) of the High Court Rules 2007.

Facts relevant to the ruling

• On 14 May 2025, counsel for the 2nd defendant was examining DW1 (Sheku Yansaneh) in chief.

• Plaintiff’s counsel objected to questions, particularly those about the whereabouts of Mr Mohamed Massaquoi, whose name appeared as owner of plot 1 on a survey plan, and concerning surveying of two plots together, on the basis that the substance was not included in the served witness statement and no leave or consent had been obtained.

• The dispute turned on the meaning and operation of Order 30 rule 1(9)(a) and (b).

Issue for determination

Whether, under Order 30 rule 1(9)(b) of the High Court Rules 2007, the 2nd defendant could, during evidence in chief, adduce matters not contained in the served witness statement without first obtaining the consent of the other party or leave of court, and what role (if any) the word “may” plays in paragraph (b).

Arguments of the parties (as recorded)

Plaintiff/Respondent

• The questioning introduced “new matters” outside the served statement, contrary to Order 30 rule 1(9)(b).

• The “may” in rule 1(9)(b) does not allow a party to proceed as it pleases.

• If the 2nd defendant wished to rely on additional matters, he had the opportunity to amend his statement, and in any event needed consent or leave.

2nd Defendant/Applicant

• The operative word in rule 1(9)(b) is “may”, which is discretionary, not mandatory.

• Counsel relied on rule 1(9)(a), submitting that the witness statement forms part of the evidence in chief, and that the plaintiff could cross examine, so the objection should be dismissed.

Authorities considered by the court

The court set out and applied:

• Order 30 rule 1(9)(a) and (b), High Court Rules 2007 (witness statements and restriction on adducing new evidence without consent or leave).

• Order 30 rule 2, High Court Rules 2007 (court’s power to vary or override provisions of rule 1, with stated exceptions).

No external case authorities were cited in the ruling itself.

Decision

Objection sustained. The line of questioning adopted by counsel for the 2nd defendant was not allowed unless and until there was compliance with Order 30 rule 1(9)(b) (consent of the other party or leave of court).

Legal reasoning

1. The text of Order 30 rule 1(9) is clear. The court treated paragraphs (a) and (b) of subrule (9) as “clear, simple, straightforward and unambiguous”.

2. “May” in rule 1(9)(b) is not absolute discretion. While discretionary language exists, it does not entitle a party to go beyond the served statement at will. If a party intends to examine a witness on issues not in the statement, the party ought to obtain consent or leave first.

3. No consent or leave was sought. The court found it undisputed that the questioning concerned substance not included in the served statement, and that counsel for the 2nd defendant did not seek consent or leave before proceeding.

4. Court’s override power exists but was not invoked. Although Order 30 rule 2 empowers the court to vary or override parts of rule 1, the judge expressly declined to exercise that discretion in the circumstances, choosing instead to determine the objection on the basis of rule 1(9)(b).

Key quotation (from the ruling, short extract)

• The judge held that “the said word does not confer absolute discretion”, and that where a party intends to examine on matters not contained in the statement, it should be by consent or leave.

Ratio decidendi

Under Order 30 rule 1(9)(b) of the High Court Rules 2007, a party may not, during evidence in chief, adduce evidence from a witness on the substance of matters not included in the served witness statement without (i) the consent of the other party or (ii) leave of the court. The word “may” in paragraph (b) is discretionary in form but does not create an unrestricted entitlement to introduce new matters.

Obiter dicta

The ruling indicates that, although Order 30 rule 2 gives the court power to vary or override aspects of rule 1 in an appropriate case, the court may decline to invoke that power and instead insist on strict compliance with rule 1(9)(b) where the procedural safeguard has not been followed.

Final order made

• The objection was sustained, and the impugned line of questioning would not be allowed until compliance with Order 30 rule 1(9)(b).

Cases and statutes or other laws referred to in the attachment

A. Statutes, rules, procedural instruments

1. High Court Rules 2007, Order 30 rule 1(9)(a) and (b).

2. High Court Rules 2007, Order 30 rule 2.

B. Case law

• None cited in the ruling.