By Janet A. Sesay
Justice Mark Ngegba of the Freetown High Court No. 8 on Thursday, 18th June, 2026 rejected State Prosecutors’ application to throw out an appeal filed by Lawyer Roland Wright on behalf Zainab Sheriff and went further to rule that the appeal matter will be heard but that no witness would be called to testify or to be cross-examined.
The learned Judge also ruled that the Master and Registrar of the High Court will furnish the court and the parties to the matter, with certified copies of the court records including the judgment of the Magistrate dated 14th April, 2026 on or before Friday, 26th June, 2026.
Justice Mark Ngegba further in his ruling, urged lawyers for the Appellant and Respondent that on receipt of the certified court records and judgment to file their appeal and response respectively in accordance with the prescribed forms in the Appendix to the Rules.
He further added that the presence of the Appellant, Yeabu Zainab Sheriff on the hearing date of the appeal is being dispensed with.
Justice Mark Ngegba further ruled that Lawyer Roland Wright who is representing the Appellant should perfect and serve the order given by the court forthwith to the Master and Registrar and all relevant parties.
The ruling came about when Lawyer Roland Wright representing the Appellant, Yeabu Zainab Sheriff filed an appeal at the High Court challenging the judgment given by Principal Magistrate, Mustapha Briama Jah on 14th April, 2026 against his client, Yeabu Zainab Sheriff who was sentenced to four years and two months imprisonment which sentence she was to run consecutively.
Before delivering his judgment, Justice Mark Ngegba noted that the Counsel representing the State, Ibrahim Tholley had filed a notice of non-compliance dated 9th June, 2026, stating that the Appellant’s appeal is in breach of Rule 3 (1) of the Rules of Appeals from Magistrate Court Rule 1969 and therefore sought the court to dismiss the said Notices of Appeal filed on behalf of the Appellant dated 30th April, 2026.
Justice Mark Ngegba further noted that Lawyer Tholley in his submission stated that the Appellant’s appeal is in breach of Rule 3 (1) of the Rules and therefore incompetent to be heard because the said appeal does not state the substance of the judgment that is being appealed against.
Lawyer Ibrahim Tholley further submitted that Paragraph 1 of the Appeal filed only states “the judgment” which is dated 14th April, 2026 and according to him, is only a mere statement made by the Appellant.
Justice Mark Ngegba went on to note that Lawyer Ibrahim Tholley further submitted that the pith and substance of the Appellant’s objections are that Form 1 and Rules 3(1) of the Court Rules have been violated, adding that the intention of the Appellant must state the brief substance of the judgment to be appealed against when they want to come to court.
Justice Mark Ngegba, in his highlight of the responses to the submission made by Lawyer Tholley, noted that Lawyer Roland Wright representing the Appellant, Yeabu Zainab Sheriff said the objections made by Lawyer Tholley on behalf of the State are premature because the application ought to have been made when the appeal was ripe for hearing after directions on the terms and conditions of the hearing have been given by the court.
He said Lawyer Wright further submitted that State Counsel had in fact based his application on a non-existent legislation, adding that there was nothing like a public notice since the restoration of the civilian government and what is now before the court are statutory instruments.
In issues of determination of the case, Justice Mark Ngegba said the court in this application can be narrowed down into two and the determination of which will consequently resolve all other issues raised by both sides.
He said with respect to the first issue which is the submission made by lawyer Wright that the application made by State Counsel Ibrahim Tholley is based on a non-existent legislation which is untenable by virtues of its lacking legal authority to support it considering provisions of the Constitutional and Statutory Instrument Act of 1999.
He said Section 5 of the said Act provides that unless the context otherwise requires any references to public notice in any enactment in existence immediately before the coming into operation of this Act shall be construed as a reference to statutory instruments or constitutional instruments as the case may be.
Justice Mark Ngegba said the issues required determination by the court in this application can be narrowed down into two and the determination of which will consequently resolve all other issues arisen.
He said Section 5 of the said Act provides that unless the context otherwise requires any references to public notice in any enactment in existence immediately before coming into operation of this Act shall be construed as a reference to statutory instruments or constitutional instruments as the case may be.
In conclusion Justice Mark Ngegba said Rule 8 (1) of the Rules places responsibility on the Master and Registrar to certify the facts of non-compliance with the Rules of the court, adding that the discretion of the court pursuant to Rule 8 could then be exercised to dismiss the appeal or as it says in Rule 8 (2) makes such order as the justice of the case required.
Justice Mark Ngegba further ruled that the date for the hearing of the appeal is set for 2nd July, 2026.