A Judge of the High Court of Sierra Leone, Honourable Justice Augustine K. Musa has refused to slam an interim injunction on Barri Chiefdom chieftaincy election in Pujehun District, Southern Province of the country.

The decision comes after an originating notice of motion was filed by Lawyer Augustine S. Marrah representing the Applicants, Lahai Bockeria Magona and nine others in which he prayed for the court to grant an interim injunction that will prevent the conduct of the said election, scheduled for the 19th May, 2025.

In his submission, Lawyer Augustine S. Marrah argued that if the Honourable Court fails to grant the application for injunction on the conduct of the election, that court action will surely empower the respondents to abuse the due process and also disenfranchise several tax payers of Barri Chiefdom.

“The 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents have adopted alien procedures in the preliminaries of the paramount chieftaincy elections in Barri Chiefdom. This irregular procedure is seen even in the issuance of tax receipt and Tribal Authority receipt,” Lawyer Marrah stated.

He added stated that a High Court action has been instituted against the Minister of Local Government who is the first respondent, the District Officer as second respondent and the Provincial Secretary as the third respondent in respect of irregularities in the preliminary process of the chieftaincy elections in Barri Chiefdom.

He furthered that his clients and other stakeholders had made frantic efforts including reaching out to the Attorney General and Minister of Justice for the respondents to comply with the laid down procedures and guidelines related to the conduct of paramount chieftaincy elections, but all efforts proved futile.

Lawyer Marrah assured the court that his clients are willing to make whatever undertaking or payment of damages in the event that the Court holds that the injunction granted ought not to have been granted.

In his ruling, the Hon. Justice Augustine K. Musa denied the application to grant the interim injunction, stating that Order 29 (1) of the Annual Supreme Court Practice 1999, otherwise known as the “White Book” sets out the threshold and/or terms under which an application for an injunctive relief may be filed and/or what conditions must be met before the filing of such an application.

He said Counsel for the applicants used the exception under sub rule (3) for an injunctive relief, adding that the court will not be inclined to make an order for same when the application for an injunctive relief has not been exhibited in the draft and or proposed originating summons.

Hon. Justice Musa maintained that he was of the view that sub rule (3) of Order 29 of White Book Supra may warrant the court to grant such an injunctive relief based on the fact that there is a draft or proposed originating summons being exhibited in the application upon which an informed decision is made.

“I must state that in the absence of the originating summons or draft of same which is fundamental to applications of this nature, the orders sought herein should be refused,” Hon. Justice Musa ruled.