The judgment marked a significant victory for a landowner (Mam Sait Njie), who had long battled to protect his property rights.
The judgment, delivered by the Hon. Mrs Justice N. Salla-Wadda, confirmed that the appellant, Mam Sait Njie, who was represented by lawyer Yassin Senghore, held valid leases for two parcels measuring approximately 74 and 100 hectares in Makumbaya Village, Kombo North District, and was in lawful possession of his land.
The legal battle began when the appellant (Mam Sait Njie) initiated a suit on July 23, 2020, seeking possession of the disputed land, a perpetual injunction against any unauthorized activity, damages for trespass, and other reliefs.
The appellant’s claim was based on the fact that he held two confirmed leases, one bearing Serial Registration Number P60/1990 for the 74-hectare parcel and another, P92/1993, for the 100-hectare parcel. These leases, which were duly validated by a Supreme Court ruling in 2018, established his title to the land beyond dispute.
At the trial, the appellant, Mam Sait Njie, presented extensive evidence, including an allocation letter from March 1989 signed by the Alkalo of Makumbaya and other elders, which formed the root of his title.
Mam Sait Njie testified about his historical use of the property, once the site of a flourishing flower farm operated in partnership with the Commonwealth Development Corporation (CDC) and the International Finance Corporation (IFC).
The appellant further explained that although the business collapsed after the military takeover in 1994, he maintained clear acts of possession by continuing to develop the property, erecting structures such as office buildings, packing sheds, and a fence, and persistently lodging complaints with local authorities regarding encroachments.
In contrast, Kombo Real Estate, which defended its position by calling five witnesses, sought to downplay its interference with the appellant’s land. Notably, a witness for the defendant admitted that a portion of the land allocated to them by the Alkalo encroached on the appellant’s property.
However, that admission was insufficient to counter the overwhelming evidence of the appellant’s established rights. The trial court had initially dismissed the appellant’s claims on grounds that he had not proven trespass and effective possession. However, the Court of Appeal took a closer look at the distinction between mere occupation and legal possession, a point emphasised by several leading legal precedents.
Justice Salla-Wadda’s ruling made clear that legal possession does not necessarily require continuous physical occupation. The court reiterated that possessing a valid lease confers a right to exclude trespassers, regardless of whether the property is constantly occupied.
Further bolstering the appellant’s case were a series of letters sent to the Head Chief of Kombo North District and the Ministry of Local Government and Lands. Those communications, along with corroborative affidavits, demonstrated that local authorities recognised the appellant’s legal possession of the land. The evidence also included a flyer distributed by Kombo Real Estate promoting the sale of plots within the disputed area, a clear indicator of the defendant’s interference.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal set aside the earlier judgment and ordered a comprehensive suite of reliefs. The appellant was granted full possession of both parcels, and a perpetual injunction was imposed to prevent Kombo Real Estate, or any agents acting on its behalf, from entering, selling, or otherwise interfering with the land. Additionally, the court awarded D200,000 in damages for trespass, along with interest at the prevailing Central Bank rate from the time the trespass began, and ordered costs of D100,000 to be paid by the defendant.
The judgment clarifies that possession, as conferred by a valid lease, carries with it the right to exclusive control and the ability to protect one’s property from unauthorised encroachments.
