Victor S.O.B Davies AND Amara miatta Haja & Others (005) [2019] SLHC 29 (07 March 2019);

Judgment dated the 3i5t  day of May  2019

The Pet it ion er, Victor S.O.B. Davies filed a Petition dated the  20t h April 2018 aga in st the ist Respondent Hon. Amara Miatta Haja who was duly returned as the  Member  of  Parliament  elected  for

Const it u ency 112 Western Area , Freetown by the National Returning Officer, National Electoral Commission. The Petitioner alleged over voting in Ward 359 and Ward 396 in the  said Constituency 112. On    the  17th day of  May  2018, the  pt  Respondent  filed an Answer wherein the 1s t Respondent denied the said allegations and put the Petitioner  to  strict  proof  of same.

This Honourable Court gave direction that the trial of this Petition shall be by Affidavit.

The Petitioner herein filed Petition as di rect ed by this Honour ab le Court in Support of the Petition dated the 20th September 2018. In same the Petitioner alleged over vot ing. Violence perpetrated on his propert y i.e. his vehicle by one Sanusie Bruski and his men, the Petitioner exhib it ed VSOBD 1 in support t hereof. The Petitioner also exhibited Police Medical Request Form, marked as VSOB02 as evidence of assault on his person, headed by Sanusie Bruski and his followers. In addition the Petitioner exhibited VSOBD 4, 5, 6 and 7 which are witness statements of Seray Tenema Kargbo, John Bockarir Kallen, Alista Success Bangura and Evemond Nicol respectively in support of the sworn Affidavit deposed by the Petitioner  herein.


Lead Counsel for theist Respondent , A. Macauley Esq . su b rn i tt ed that they are opposed to the Affidavit filed by the Petitioner in support of the  Petition herein and maintained that they relied   on

three Affidavits in defence of the pt Respondent. First, the Affidavit in Opposition deposed to  by the  pt  Respondent dated 20t h September  2018 in  which the  ist Respondent  stated that  all  the

allegations of the Petitioner are unt rue. Besides , the  incident  between the Petitioner  and Sanusie Bruski has no nexus to  her, as  the said San usi e Bruski was not a Polling Agent in her Const it u ency. Second, the Affidavit in Opp osit io n deposed to by Bockarie Aba l la Conteh of New Site Jui, Fr eet own, dated the 24th day of September 2018 and in same the  Af fi ant supported the Affidavit of the 1st Respon d ent . Third, the Aff idavit of Mohamed Bangura of N0.11 Mammah Lane, Gloucester Vil lage, Freetown, dated the 20th day of Sept ember 2018, in which the said Affiant supported the Aff ida vit in Opposition  deposed to  by the  ist Respondent  and at the  same

contradicting the Petitioner of any over voting in Constituency 112 as

deposed in paragraph 3 thereof.

Counsel for  the  Petitioner submitted further in Court two  legal aut horit ies . First, the case of Morgan and Others v. Simpson and

another (1974) 3 All ER 7 22, where it was established by the Court that an Election can be nullified because of irregularities substantially affect the result . Second, the case Gunn and others v. Sharpe and others where it was held by the Court that substantial  error

disfr anch isi ng voters significantly must be declared void.


Lead Counsel for  the  1s t Respondent, A Macauley Esq. submitted two cases and a synopsis of Argument. First , the case of Onoyom v.Egar i (1999) 5 NWLR 417 where the Court established in Nigeria as a rat io decidendi in arriving at its decision, 'the onus is on the person who denies  its  correctness  and  authenticity  to  rebut  the presumption'.

Second, the case of WuIgo v. Bukar (1999) 3 NWLR 539, here again analogous principle of law was established by the Cou rt , in  that , an




allegation of electoral offences and malpractices placed the burden  on the party alleging same to submit substantial proof. The third is synopsis  of  Argument  in relation to  the trial itself.

The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Responden{did not file an Affidavit in reply, as such I will not pay heed to any legal submission made by t                               D.E. Taylor Esq. representing them.

I am absolutely not satisfied in view of the evidence in the case of the Petitioner herein as the Petitioner has not in any way substantially or significantly proven that malpractices and over voting he alleged was sufficient enough to overturn the election result of theist Respondent . I agree with Counsel for the p t Respondent in relation to the legal argument he canvassed for and on behalf of his client.

In the light of this development, I hereby  entered  judgment  in favour of the 1st Respondent herein, Hon. Haja Miatta Amara of the All Peoples Congress, that she was duly returned by the National Returning Officer, National Electoral Commission as Member of Parliament for Constituency 112 Western Area in line Section 78(1) a of the Constitution of Sierra Leone Act. NO. 6 of 1991 and I make the following  consequential  orders:

  1. That the Petition herein filed by the Petitioner is dismissed by this Honourable Court

That the said Honourable Haja Miatta Amara shall continue to represent Constituency 112 in the Sierra Leone House of Parliament