By Mahmud Tim Kargbo
Saturday, 23 May 2026
What began as accusations of bureaucratic obstruction ultimately ended with a High Court order cancelling and expunging the very conveyance at the centre of the dispute.
Few recent legal controversies in Sierra Leone have more sharply illuminated the fragile intersection between land governance, judicial oversight, administrative accountability, and public trust than the dispute surrounding the Hill Cot Road property transaction and the eventual intervention of the High Court of Sierra Leone.
What initially appeared in sections of the media as a straightforward story of administrative resistance gradually evolved into something far more consequential: a revealing case study in how contested ownership claims, disputed documentation, institutional pressure, and public governance collide within vulnerable property administration systems.
At stake was never merely a parcel of urban land. The deeper issue concerned whether state institutions entrusted with safeguarding property rights would prioritise procedural legality over administrative convenience once ownership itself became contested.
In Sierra Leone’s increasingly pressured urban property environment, where overlapping claims, incomplete archival systems, rapidly escalating land values, and contested conveyances continue to generate conflict, the Hill Cot Road matter quickly expanded beyond a routine conveyancing disagreement.
It became an administrative confrontation involving the judiciary, land administration authorities, competing legal narratives, media scrutiny, disputed authority documents, and broader questions concerning the credibility of public administration itself.
The matter eventually reached the Land, Property and Environmental Division of the High Court under MISC/APP 41/2026 and marked as 2026 F. No. 8. The proceedings were brought by businessman Bassam Koussa through his lawful attorney and agent Umaru Bah pursuant to Section 134 of the Constitution of Sierra Leone Act No. 6 of 1991.
At the centre of the application was a request for an Order of Mandamus directing the Office of the Administrator and Registrar General to expunge a contested Deed of Conveyance connected to the estate of the late Anis Koussa, who died intestate.
Long before the matter reached judicial resolution, however, fierce public criticism had already emerged against the Director of Surveys and Lands, Tamba S. Dauda. Several reports portrayed the Director as a public official allegedly obstructing a court supervised transaction and interfering with a lawful property process.
Sensational headlines circulated across sections of the print and online media accusing the Director of undermining judicial authority and creating administrative obstacles to the development of the disputed property. Some media commentators and public critics also framed the controversy through an ethnic and nationalist lens, accusing the Director of favouring a Lebanese businessman over Sierra Leonean interests. Supporters of the Director, however, argued that the dispute concerned questions of documentary legitimacy and administrative legality rather than ethnicity or nationality.
Documents reviewed during this investigation, together with interviews conducted with individuals familiar with the matter, revealed contested conveyances, conflicting ownership narratives, allegations concerning forged documentation, and a written repudiation by the owner himself denying that he had authorised the transaction in question.
At the centre of the controversy was a registered Power of Attorney purportedly signed by Bassam Koussa authorising one Nabie Yousef Fofana to act on his behalf in relation to the property. According to statements attributed to Koussa during inquiries into the matter, he categorically denied ever signing such a document.
“I never signed that document,” he reportedly stated.
“I did not authorise anyone to sell my land. The signature is not mine.”
The denial was later formalised in a handwritten statement submitted directly to the Director of Lands on 23 August 2023. In the document, Koussa stated:
“I state categorically that I did not issue or sign such document. The signature is fraud. I have not authorised anyone to sell such land and specifically I have not authorised Mr Fofana to act on my behalf.”
That repudiation fundamentally altered the administrative and legal character of the dispute confronting state authorities. Once a direct ownership repudiation existed, the issue ceased to be merely procedural. It became a question of public duty, administrative legality, and potential state exposure to fraudulent conveyancing. Critically, no publicly known counter affidavit appears to have directly contradicted the repudiation itself.
The controversy later affected an application connected to the approval of a building permit reportedly involving businessman Salim Sillah. Sources familiar with the internal administrative process indicated that the Director of Surveys and Lands declined to proceed in advising the Minister of Lands, Housing and Country Planning, Dr Turad Senesie, to approve the permit while the validity of ownership documentation remained contested.
That procedural caution subsequently became the basis for sustained criticism against the Director. Yet viewed through the framework of administrative law and constitutional governance, the dispute became considerably more complex. Was the Director obstructing a court supervised process? Or was he attempting to prevent the State itself from legitimising a transaction potentially tainted by disputed authority documents? That distinction ultimately became central to the controversy.
Senior officials familiar with the matter argued that once the owner formally disputed the authenticity of the documents, public administrators became legally obligated to suspend approvals pending verification. Failure to do so, they argued, could have exposed the State to legal liability and institutional complicity if the underlying instruments were later determined to be invalid.
That position is not without legal foundation. Across Commonwealth legal systems, administrative authorities retain independent obligations to verify legality and procedural legitimacy even where court supervised transactions exist. Judicial supervision does not automatically authenticate disputed ownership instruments nor extinguish the duty of administrative verification.
That distinction became especially important within Sierra Leone’s deed registration framework, which records instruments presented for registration but does not itself constitute definitive judicial verification of ownership legitimacy. Several legal analysts consulted during this investigation argued that the Director’s restraint aligned with both domestic administrative obligations and broader international land governance principles.
A land law academic attached to the University of Sierra Leone observed that a court supervised sale does not validate a transaction founded upon allegedly fraudulent authority documents.
“If the underlying documents are void, the transaction itself becomes vulnerable,” the academic stated.
Another regional land governance consultant familiar with ECOWAS property systems noted that absentee property owners across West Africa are increasingly targeted through allegedly forged Powers of Attorney and disputed conveyances.
“The first line of defence is vigilant land administration,” the consultant stated.
“If public officials ignore direct ownership repudiations, they risk institutional complicity.”
The constitutional significance of the dispute was ultimately reinforced by the High Court itself.
In its ruling dated 25 March 2026, delivered by Hon. Justice Alhaji Momoh-Jah Stevens, the Land, Property and Environmental Division of the High Court stated that after reviewing the Originating Summons dated 27 February 2026, the supporting affidavit, and correspondence from the Survey of Lands dated 20 November 2025, the court had “carefully considered the submission of counsel for the applicant and in the interest of justice and fairness” ordered the cancellation of the contested instrument.
The order stated:
“That this Honourable Court cancels and expunges the Deed of Conveyance dated the 13th day of March 2025 and registered as No. 359/2025 in Volume 1013 at page 11 in the Registered Book of Conveyance kept in the Office of the Administrator and Registrar-General Roxy Building Walpole Street Freetown.”
That judicial intervention substantially altered the public interpretation of the controversy. What had once been framed in sections of the public discourse as administrative obstruction increasingly appeared, following judicial scrutiny, as regulatory restraint exercised amid concerns regarding documentary legitimacy and disputed ownership records.
The ruling also reinforced an important legal distinction frequently misunderstood within public debate: a court supervised transaction does not automatically extinguish underlying ownership disputes nor independently validate defective authority documents upon which a transaction may have been constructed.
The implications extend far beyond a single property dispute. Across many post conflict African states, land governance remains among the most institutionally fragile dimensions of public administration. Weak archival systems, incomplete digitisation, overlapping customary and statutory ownership frameworks, rising urban land values, bureaucratic opacity, and documentation irregularities continue to create fertile conditions for ownership disputes and fraudulent conveyancing.
Sierra Leone is not unique in confronting such pressures. But the consequences can be profound. Secure property rights remain central to commercial lending, infrastructure expansion, urban development, diaspora investment, and broader economic confidence. Where ownership legitimacy becomes uncertain, confidence in the wider governance environment inevitably weakens.
Banks become cautious regarding collateral security. Investors hesitate over acquisition legitimacy. Developers face escalating legal exposure. Families become trapped in prolonged inheritance disputes. Public confidence in state institutions gradually deteriorates.
Transparent land governance systems are therefore not merely administrative mechanisms. They are foundational components of economic stability and constitutional credibility.
The World Bank Land Governance Assessment FrameworkAttachment.png has repeatedly emphasised the relationship between transparent land administration, investment confidence, and institutional stability.
Similarly, UN Habitat Land and GLASAttachment.png has identified secure land tenure and accountable property administration as central pillars of social stability and conflict prevention.
The African Union Land Policy FrameworkAttachment.png likewise stresses the importance of transparent and legally secure land administration systems across the continent.
Within the wider West African region, ECOWASAttachment.png governance specialists have repeatedly warned that weak property administration systems and disputed ownership frameworks can undermine investor confidence and institutional trust.
The Koussa matter also exposed another enduring vulnerability within Sierra Leone’s property environment: intestate succession disputes. Where estates remain without clearly structured succession arrangements, competing claims frequently emerge, creating opportunities for contested conveyances, procedural confusion, administrative conflict, and prolonged litigation.
Such pressures place enormous strain upon judicial and registration systems already managing increasing property related disputes within rapidly expanding urban centres such as Freetown.
Equally revealing throughout the controversy was the conduct of sections of the media itself. Several reports critical of the Director of Lands did not reference the handwritten repudiation submitted by Koussa or the wider ownership dispute surrounding the transaction documents. In some instances, public reporting appeared to conflate judicial supervision of a transaction with definitive validation of ownership legitimacy.
That raises broader questions concerning media responsibility in legally sensitive disputes involving property rights, alleged fraud, and ongoing administrative review. In democratic societies, investigative journalism serves as an essential safeguard against abuse of power. But where material facts central to institutional understanding are omitted, public perception itself risks distortion.
At the constitutional centre of the matter lies the legal mechanism of Mandamus. Within Commonwealth legal systems, Mandamus remains one of the judiciary’s most important supervisory instruments. It empowers courts to compel public authorities to fulfil legal obligations where procedural irregularity, abuse of discretion, or administrative illegality is alleged.
Its significance extends beyond technical procedure. Mandamus reinforces one of the core principles underlying constitutional governance itself: that administrative authority remains subject to judicial scrutiny.
The High Court’s intervention in the Koussa matter therefore carries significance not only for the immediate parties involved, but also for the broader governance culture within Sierra Leone’s public administration system. It reaffirms that official registration does not place administrative action beyond judicial review where legality, procedural fairness, or institutional propriety become contested.
For legal practitioners, the ruling may ultimately stand as an important reaffirmation that registration systems remain subordinate to legality itself. For public administrators, it reinforces the necessity of rigorous verification procedures where ownership disputes emerge.
And for the wider public, the controversy serves as a reminder that confidence in governance institutions depends not merely upon the existence of laws, but upon the willingness of institutions to apply lawful scrutiny even amid commercial pressure, political criticism, and competing interests.
The Koussa matter may ultimately be remembered less for the conveyance in question than for what it revealed about the pressures confronting land administration systems when legality, property, administrative authority, and contested ownership converge within fragile governance environments.