By: Audrey Raymonda John
Three accused persons Bondu Sumaila, Mary Pessima, and Kumba Pessima—have made another appearance before Magistrate Mary Julia Gbloh at Pademba Road Court No. 5 in Freetown on four counts of trespass to land, common assault, malicious damage, and abusive language.
The charges include trespass to land contrary to Section 15(1)(a)(b) of the Summary Conviction Act Cap 37 of 1960, common assault contrary to Section 19 of the same Act, malicious damage contrary to the Malicious Damage Act 1861, and abusive language contrary to Section 3(i) of the Public Order Act No. 4 of 1965.
According to the particulars of offence, the defendants allegedly, on 14 November 2025 at Upper Tengbeh Town in Freetown, unlawfully entered the complainant’s premises and assaulted him in an insulting, threatening, and annoying manner.
Counts two and three further allege that on the same date and place, the defendants assaulted the complainant at his residence with intent to interfere with his person and intentionally damaged septic and water pipes belonging to him.
Count four alleges that the defendants used abusive language against the complainant, Albert Mohamed Gaima, to his annoyance.
When the charges were read and explained to the defendants, no plea was taken.
During the defence, counsel led witness Kumba Sylvia Pessima, a teacher, to testify. She told the court that she recognised the complainant as her neighbour and the defendants as her relatives.
She stated that on 13 November 2025, after returning from work, she met her mother, the first defendant, in tears. When she asked what had happened, her mother explained an incident involving the complainant.
The witness further testified that she advised her mother to calm down and sent her younger brother, Ibrahim, to purchase sticks. Upon his return, she said she used the sticks to fence their compound but alleged that the complainant later destroyed the fence.
She also claimed that the complainant ignored legal advice not to destroy the fence and allegedly stated that even if it was rebuilt repeatedly, he would continue to remove it.
During cross-examination, counsel for the complainant asked whether her actions were based on information provided by the first defendant, to which she answered yes. She was also asked whether she blocked the area to prevent the complainant from passing, and she confirmed that she did.
When further asked whether the complainant still access to his premises had that day, she replied that he did have access.
Magistrate Mary Julia Gbloh adjourned the matter to 24 April for continuation of hearing, and bail was extended for all defendants.