By Janet A. Sesay
Abdulai Sheriff, Defence Witness for Dr. Richard Konteh has on Monday, 2n d March, 2026 in cross-examination told the court that the Plaintiff, Marie Sesay claimed that she purchased four towns plot of land from the Defendant, Dr. Richard Konteh but that she only received two towns plot of land from him.
He also stated before the court that in 2010, the Plaintiff expressed intention to construct a house in Sierra Leone but he was not involved in the purchase of the land.
Addulia Sheriff is a resident of the United States based at Minnesota and was brought before the court by the Defendant, Dr. Richard Konteh to testify in his defense.
In his testimony via video link before Justice Manuela Harding at the High Court in Freetown, Sheriff described himself as a Program Director and he knew both the Plaintiff and the Defendant and recalled making statements in relation to the matter.
He was shown his witness statements which he admitted to have made and that he relied on the entirety of the statements. The statement was therefore tendered in court and marked “Exhibit DW3 1-234” to form part of the Defence’s case.
At this juncture, Counsel Marrah objected to the admissibility of the statement presented, arguing that Paragraph 8 of the said statement amounted to hearsay. He also argued that Paragraph 9 of the same statement involves a-social media blackmail where the witness had already passed judgment on the matter rather than adducing evidence in his statement. He maintained that such a statement should not be tendered before the court.
In response DTM Gbondo on behalf of Dr. Richard Conteh said the paragraphs stated by the Prosecuting Lawyer, Sorie Sengbeh Marrah merely recounted a conversation between the Plaintiff and the Witness.
He said Lawyer Marrah will have the opportunity to test whether the evidence of the witness amounted to hearsay during his cross-examination.
At this stage Lawyer Marrah cross-examined the witness and he confirmed that he is a relative of one of the parties to the matter.
Sheriff went on to tell the court that in 2011 money was received by the defendant for the land and not in 2013. Lawyer Marrah further asked Sheriff whether he could recall severally that the plaintiff repeatedly requested for the land she purchased but he responded that he could not recall.
He was also asked whether the alternative land offered to the plaintiff was accepted by her and he responded that he did not know.
At the end of proceedings, the matter was adjourned to the 10 March 2026 for continuation.