Introduction
This article explores whether Theophilus Pratt & Another (hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs) v. Dr. Turad Senessie & Others (2024) SC. Misc. AppNo.7/2024 (unreported) is primarily about ownership rights (title declaration) or the constitutional protection of property rights under Section 21 of the 1991 Constitution. It examines the case’s impact on property law, government accountability, and human rights.
Overview of the Case
The case involves a land dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendants over a parcel of land at Peninsular Road, Mamah Beach, in the Western Area of Sierra Leone. The defendants entered the land, claiming it was state property. The plaintiffs then filed an action in the Supreme Court, seeking a declaration that the land belonged to them and that their fundamental rights had been infringed upon, contrary to Section 21 of the Constitution of Sierra Leone, Act No. 6 of 1991.
The Central Legal Issues
Justice Glenna Thompson JSC identified four main legal issues:
1. Whether the land in question was state land.
2. Whether the plaintiffs had a valid title to the land.
3. Whether the plaintiffs’ fundamental rights were violated under Section 21 of the Constitution.
4. Whether the defendants committed an act of trespass.
Analysis of the Judgment
1. Was the Land in Question State Land?
Justice Glenna Thompson relied on the State Lands Act No. 19 of 1960 and the case of Mustapha Abu Tarraf v. Dr. Dennis Sandi & Others. Section 2 of the Act defines state lands and sets conditions under which land can be classified as state-owned.
The learned Justice observed that the disputed land had a land and survey (LS) number, which is common for privately owned properties. She referred to Justice Halloway’s ruling in Mustapha Abu Tarraf v. Dr. Dennis Sandi & Others, emphasizing that if the Director of Surveys and Lands signs off on survey plans as private property, then the land is not state-owned.
Furthermore, the state failed to provide any legal documentation proving that the land was acquired by treaty, concession, or any compulsory acquisition process. Therefore, the Court ruled that the land in question was not state land.
2. Did the Plaintiffs Have a Valid Title?
One of the plaintiffs’ reliefs sought was a declaration of title. Justice Glenna relied on Seymor-Wilson v. Musa Abess and the Limitation Act No. 51 of 1961, which allows for possessory title where ownership can be claimed based on continuous possession for over 12 years without any adverse claims.
She reiterated the principle that a plaintiff must succeed on the strength of their own title, not the weakness of the defendant’s case. Since the plaintiffs occupied the land for more than 12 years without any claim from the state, the Court declared that they held a valid and enforceable title.
3. Were the Plaintiffs’ Fundamental Rights Violated?
Having ruled that the land was privately owned, the Court examined whether the state’s actions constituted a violation of Section 21 of the 1991 Constitution, which protects against compulsory deprivation of property without due process.
Justice Glenna referenced Section 3 of the Public Lands Act, Cap 116 (1960), which outlines the procedures for legally acquiring land for public purposes. Since the government did not follow these legal procedures, the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights were infringed upon.
4. Did the Defendants Commit Trespass?
The Court held that trespass does not require proof of ownership, only proof of possession. Since the plaintiffs were in possession, and the defendants forcefully entered, destroyed fences, and expelled workers, the Court ruled that their actions constituted trespass. As a result, the plaintiffs were awarded damages.
Declaration of Title vs. Protection of Fundamental Rights: Was Title Proof Necessary?
While the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights were violated, was proving title necessary?
Yes. Establishing ownership was crucial because:
1. A claim of rights violation requires proof of legal entitlement.
2. The state contested ownership, making it necessary to settle the title dispute first.
3. Even under Section 21(5) of the Constitution, ownership is key in compulsory acquisition matters.
Thus, title proof was integral to demonstrating the unlawfulness of the state’s actions.
Impact of the Judgment: A Breakthrough for Property Rights?
This case has been considered a landmark decision, sparking widespread discussion on social media after the Judiciary of Sierra Leone posted the judgment on Facebook on February 8, 2025.
However, whether it truly reshapes property rights depends on government compliance and subsequent judicial enforcement. Nevertheless, the ruling sets a precedent for land disputes, reinforcing the rule of law in property rights.
Does the Minister Have Any Recourse?
The Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering the defendants to vacate the land and awarding damages:
NLe 150,000 to the 1st plaintiff
NLe 110,000 to the 2nd plaintiff
The Minister has no recourse because:
1. The defendants were served notices but failed to appear in Court.
2. They did not file any defense within the stipulated time under Rule 92(3) of the Supreme Court Rules, 1982.
3. Under Rule 96(2), the Court proceeded in their absence.
If the government wishes to reclaim the land, they must follow due process under Section 21 of the Constitution and Section 3 of the Public Lands Act.
Conclusion
The Pratt v. Senessie ruling underscores that while the case primarily involved constitutional rights violations, title declaration was critical in proving the infringement. Justice Glenna Thompson’s judgment solidifies property law principles and highlights state accountability in land acquisition.
The defendants’ failure to engage in the legal process left them without immediate recourse, but any future claim must align with legal frameworks governing land ownership.
This decision establishes a precedent that will shape future land disputes in Sierra Leone, though its true impact will depend on government enforcement and adherence to legal safeguards.
Discover more from The African Dream
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
