By Janet A. Sesay
The Supreme Court of Sierra Leone has overruled an objection challenging an application to consolidate three related constitutional matters, clearing the way for the Court to proceed with the hearing of the consolidation application.
The ruling was delivered on Wednesday, October 7, 2026, by a panel presided over by Chief Justice Komba Kamanda.
The Court held that the defendants were not required to file statements of the case in all three matters before being heard on the consolidation application.
The ruling clears the way for the Court to proceed with the consolidation application, which concerns matters including SC No. 8/2026, involving Hon. Osman Timbo, Hon. Abdul Kargbo and Hon. Daniel Koroma, and SC No. 9/2026, involving the All People’s Congress (APC), Thomas Moor Conteh and Hon. Tamba Kellie, among other parties.
The objection was raised during proceedings on the consolidation application by counsel for the Plaintiff, Joseph Fitzgerald Kamara, who argued that there was no paper file before the Court containing the Defendants’ response to the matter.
Kamara submitted that a defendant who had failed to file the necessary court documents should not be granted an audience before the Court and, consequently, should not be heard on matters relating to consolidation and compliance.
He further argued that there was no application or prayer before the Court seeking an extension of time for the defendants to file their papers.
Referring to Rule 92, Kamara maintained that the failure to file the required court papers or records was a matter that ought to be taken into consideration by the Court.
He also contended that the Attorney-General, having allegedly failed to file a defence, could not properly raise the objection before the Court.
Other counsel appearing in the matter adopted Kamara’s submissions, particularly the argument that the issue before the Court was fundamental and did not require consolidation.
Counsels also urged the Court to strike out the objection, arguing that no certificate of non-compliance had been filed.
However, in its ruling, the Supreme Court rejected the objection and held that the application for consolidation should proceed to be heard.
The Court considered the nature of the application and relied on the precedent in SC 4/20, John Benjamin and Two Others v. Professor Christian Atto and Three Others, among other authorities.
The Court also referred to a 2015 Supreme Court matter involving MMBP and BNDC, in which Mr. Charles Makaru had objected to Mr. Makoli proceeding with an interlocutory motion without first filing a statement of case on behalf of the defendants he represented.
The Supreme Court explained that the application in that case concerned the jurisdiction of the Court to hear the plaintiff’s application, adding that a ruling in Mr. Makoli’s favour would therefore have made it unnecessary for him to proceed with filing a statement of defence on behalf of the defendants.
The Court distinguished that matter from the present case did not concern the jurisdiction of the Court.
Instead, the Court held that the issue could be dealt with preliminarily before the substantive merits of the cases were considered.
The Court further stated that it had considered the authorities cited by counsel for the Plaintiff/Respondent but found, with respect, that they did not directly address the application before it.
“In the instant case, the application before the court is for the consolidation of three matters that appear to be related.
The Court rejected the argument that the Defendant/Applicant was required to file a statement of case in all three matters before being heard on the consolidation application.
According to the Court, imposing such a requirement would substantially defeat the purpose of the consolidation application, whose principal objective was to enable the defendants to file one comprehensive case in respect of the matters once consolidated.
“In view of the above, the objection is overruled, and the application for consolidation to be heard.
The decision clears the way for the Supreme Court to proceed with hearing the application seeking to consolidate the related matters.
The case comes up today Thursday, October 8, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. for continuation.