By: Audrey Raymonda John
Justice Mark Ngegba of High Court No. 8 in Freetown has ruled that the appeal filed on behalf of Yabu Zainab Sheriff will be determined based on the evidence and records from the Magistrate Court proceedings, without the need for witnesses to testify or be cross-examined.
The ruling was delivered on Thursday, 18 June 2026, during proceedings relating to an appeal filed by lawyer Roland Wright on behalf of the appellant, Yabu Zainab Sheriff.
Justice Ngegba further ordered that the Master and Registrar of the High Court furnish the Court and all parties with certified copies of the complete court records, including the judgment delivered by Principal Magistrate Mustapha Briama Jah on 14 April 2026. The documents are to be made available on or before 26 June 2026.
The Court also directed counsel for both the appellant and the respondent to file their appeal submissions and responses, respectively, upon receipt of the certified records, in accordance with the prescribed forms contained in the relevant Rules of Court.
Additionally, Justice Ngegba dispensed with the requirement for the appellant, Yabu Zainab Sheriff, to be physically present on the date fixed for the hearing of the appeal.
The Court further ordered lawyer Roland Wright, representing the appellant, to perfect and serve the Court’s order on the Master and Registrar, as well as all relevant parties, without delay.
The appeal arises from the judgment delivered by Principal Magistrate Mustapha Briama Jah on 14 April 2026, in which Yabu Zainab Sheriff was sentenced to four years and two months’ imprisonment, with the sentences ordered to run consecutively.
Before delivering his ruling, Justice Ngegba addressed a Notice of Non-Compliance filed by State Counsel Ibrahim Tholley on 9 June 2026.
The State Counsel argued that the appellant had failed to comply with Rule 3(1) of the Appeals from Magistrates’ Courts Rules, 1969, and therefore urged the Court to dismiss the Notice of Appeal filed on 30 April 2026.
According to Mr. Tholley, the appeal was incompetent because it failed to clearly state the substance of the judgment being challenged. He argued that the notice merely referred to “the judgment dated 14 April 2026” without specifying the grounds or substance of the decision being appealed against.
He further submitted that the requirements of Form 1 and Rule 3(1) had not been complied with and that the appellant was obliged to briefly state the substance of the judgment under challenge.
Responding to the objection, lawyer Roland Wright argued that the application by State Counsel was premature, contending that such an objection should only be raised when the appeal is ripe for hearing and after the Court has issued directions regarding the conduct of the appeal.
Mr. Wright also submitted that the State had relied on what he described as a non-existent legislative instrument, arguing that references to Public Notices were no longer applicable following the restoration of civilian rule and had since been replaced by statutory instruments.
In addressing this issue, Justice Ngegba held that the argument was unsustainable in light of the provisions of the Constitutional Instruments and Statutory Instruments Act, 1999.
The Judge noted that Section 5 of the Act provides that, unless the context otherwise requires, any reference to a Public Notice in legislation existing before the commencement of the Act shall be construed as a reference to a statutory instrument or constitutional instrument.
Justice Ngegba further observed that the issues raised by both parties could be narrowed down to two key questions, the determination of which would resolve all other related matters.
In his conclusion, the Judge stated that Rule 8(1) of the Rules places responsibility on the Master and Registrar to certify any instance of non-compliance with the Rules of Court. He added that the Court’s discretion under Rule 8 may then be exercised either to dismiss the appeal or to make any order that the interests of justice require.
Having considered the submissions of both parties, Justice Ngegba declined to dismiss the appeal and instead ordered that the matter proceed to hearing.
The appeal has been scheduled for hearing on 2 July 2026.