By: Audrey Raymonda John
An APC presidential aspirant, Dr Richard Conteh, has been sued at the High Court in Freetown by Marie Sesay, a Sierra Leonean resident in the United States, over an alleged land transaction involving US$8,000.
The matter, which is before Justice Manuela A. J. Harding, concerns the recovery of a two-town plot of land situated at Mamah Street, Gloucester, in the Western Area of the Republic of Sierra Leone, as well as the refund of monies allegedly paid to the defendant.
According to a Writ of Summons filed by the plaintiff through her lawyer, Augustine Sengu Marrah, Marie Sesay is seeking recovery of the land and US$2,000 allegedly paid to Dr Conteh to facilitate the construction of a perimeter fence around a four-town plot of land, for which a total sum of US$8,000 was reportedly paid.
During proceedings on Monday, 2 February 2026, the plaintiff’s first witness, Florence Turay, testified that she is the younger sister of the plaintiff, Marie Sesay.
She told the court that sometime in 2010, Dr Richard Conteh visited the United States and met with the plaintiff. During the visit, Marie Sesay expressed interest in acquiring land in Freetown, and Dr Conteh allegedly assured her that he could help secure land for her.
The witness stated that after Dr Conteh returned to Sierra Leone, he offered to sell a large portion of land to the plaintiff, but Marie Sesay insisted on purchasing only four town plots. She said Dr Conteh informed the plaintiff that each plot cost US$2,000, an arrangement to which both parties allegedly agreed.
Madam Turay testified that Dr Conteh instructed the plaintiff to make payment into his bank account in the United States. She said an initial payment of US$5,000 was made, followed by a further US$3,000, bringing the total payment to US$8,000 for the four-town plot of land.
She further told the court that despite making full payment, the defendant did not immediately show the plaintiff any land. After repeated requests, Dr Conteh allegedly showed the plaintiff’s niece, Mrs Ann Turay, a parcel of land at Tree Planting, Leicester Road, which was rejected due to its condition. This rejection was communicated to the plaintiff.
The witness said that months later, Dr Conteh showed Mrs Ann Turay another piece of land at Mamah Street, Gloucester, which was accepted and communicated to the plaintiff.
Madam Turay added that an additional US$2,000 was paid to Dr Conteh for the construction of a perimeter fence and the execution of a Deed of Conveyance in the plaintiff’s name.
However, she testified that Dr Conteh delayed the execution and registration of the conveyance and later produced a deed for only two town plots instead of the four plots allegedly paid for. The plaintiff rejected the conveyance and demanded documentation for the full four plots.
She further alleged that Dr Conteh later attempted to sell the remaining two town plots to another person and proposed offering alternative land near a community cemetery, which the plaintiff rejected.
The witness also claimed that when the plaintiff attempted to take possession of the remaining two plots, Dr Conteh reported her to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) for trespass, allegedly denying that he ever sold the land to her.
Madam Turay concluded that the plaintiff had suffered loss and damages because of the defendant’s actions.
Another witness, Reverend Allan Sesay, testified that he knew both the plaintiff and the defendant. He told the court that he was the original owner who sold the four town plots of land to Dr Conteh.
According to Reverend Sesay, Dr Conteh initially informed him that the land was intended for the construction of student hostels. He later learned that the land was to be transferred to another person.
He testified that Dr Conteh later sent his personal assistant, Jimmy, along with a surveyor, to survey the land. Jimmy allegedly informed him that Dr Conteh had instructed that the four plots be divided into two separate parcels.
Reverend Sesay said he later signed two separate conveyances, one of which bore the name of Marie Sesay, while neither bore the name of Dr Conteh. He further testified that Dr Conteh later went to his house with police officers, interrogated him, and invited him to make a statement at the police station.
Both witnesses were cross-examined by defence counsel representing Dr Richard Conteh, who was absent from court.
The matter has been adjourned to Wednesday, 5 February 2026, for continuation.