By Nelson Manneh
In a ruling delivered on Tuesday, June 24, 2025, Justice Sonia Akinbiyi of the Banjul High Court Annexe dismissed an application filed by Kebba Sanyang of on behalf of Babai Bojang and others, seeking to add several state institutions to the list of defendants in an ongoing land ownership dispute.
The motion, which aimed to join the Department of Physical Planning, the Department of Lands, and the Attorney General to the civil suit, was struck out for lack of merit, with the judge ruling that the applicants failed to demonstrate how those institutions were necessary parties to the proceedings.
The lawsuit in question was filed by Momodou L. Jarju, widely known as Rongo, who is suing over 15 individuals — including village heads (alkalos) and prominent community members — over ownership claims to disputed land. The named defendants include Bakary Bojang (aka Babai), Ebrima Bojang (Alkalo of Lamin), Jerreh Sanyang, Siddy Gomez, Charnock Njie, Mustapha Jammeh, Kunkung Danso, Lamin Conteh, Malick Sey (aka Mawdo), Kebba Kujabie (Alkalo of Makumbaya), Modou Jobe, Nfally Sanneh, Modou Manneh, Sulayman Sisay (Alkalo of Kubariko), Winston Able Thomas, Muhammed Mendy, and Buba Ceesay.
On the day of the ruling, the plaintiff Momodou L. Jarju was represented by Counsel Abdou Aziz Bensouda of Crown Chambers, holding brief for Borry S. Touray, while none of the defendants were present in court.
In her judgment, Justice Sonia Akinbiyi reviewed the legal foundation for joinder applications under Order 3 Rule 5(1) and Order 3 Rule 4(2) of the High Court Rules. She emphasised that courts only join additional parties if they are deemed necessary, will be directly affected by the outcome, or if their legal rights are in dispute.
Citing the Nigerian Supreme Court case Benson Akintola Sumonu Ige & others v. Babajida Farneaa & others (1994) LPELR-1452 (SC), Justice Akinbiyi reiterated that trial courts assessing joinder applications must focus on whether a prima facie case has been established for the inclusion of new parties, not the substantive merits of the case.
“The guiding principles are clear,” she stated in court. “(a) Whether the interveners are necessary, (b) whether they will be directly affected by the decision, (c) whether they will be bound by the decision, and (d) whether their legal rights over the matter are in dispute.”
She found that in the current application, the defendants merely claimed that the land was state-owned, but provided no legal or evidentiary basis explaining how the state institutions would be prejudiced by not being part of the case.
“The applicants failed to show how these parties would be directly affected or legally bound by the court’s judgment,” she ruled. “They also failed to show that any legal right belonging to the proposed parties was in dispute.”
She concluded that the attempt to include the Department of Physical Planning, the Department of Lands, and the Attorney General lacked legal justification.
In her ruling, she wrote:
“From the foregoing evaluation, this application filed by KANSALA CHAMBERS on behalf of their clients Bakary Babai Bojang and others is deemed to lack merit and is therefore struck out by this Honourable Court in favour of the application submitted by CROWN CHAMBERS on behalf of Momodou L. Jarju Rongo.”
The substantive hearing on the land ownership matter will continue.
