Justice Ebrima Jaiteh rules on competing land claims at Mamuda Village in a 31-page judgment that navigates trust law, marital property rights and the limits of financial remittances as proof of ownership.
A property dispute rooted in a cross-border romantic relationship and a broken marriage came before the High Court, Justice Jaiteh delivered judgment between George Samuel Bryan, a Jamaican national, and Sohna Sallah, a Gambian citizen, over two landed properties situated at Mamuda Village, Kombo South.
The two properties at the centre of the dispute measure approximately 30 metres by 35 metres and 28 metres by 30 metres respectively.
George Samuel Bryan appeared as Plaintiff and Defendant to Counterclaim, represented by Counsel A.M. Dabo. Sohna Sallah appeared as Defendant and Counterclaimant, represented by Counsel I.K. Jallow.
George Samuel Bryan’s case, as set out in his Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim, was that he met the Defendant (Sohna Sallah) while he was in the United Kingdom and that they communicated regularly by Skype.
He stated that Sohna Sallah informed him that non-Gambians could not own land or conduct business in the country unless they had a Gambian partner, and that she proposed marriage as a means for him to lawfully invest in the country. Although initially reluctant, he agreed, and an Islamic marriage was contracted while he was still in the United Kingdom.
George Samuel Bryan (Plaintiff) stated that between 2010 and 2019, he remitted a cumulative sum of D1,674,057.89 to Sohna Sallah (Defendant), and that those funds were used to purchase, develop and construct the two suit properties. He said he instructed Sohna Sallah to purchase land on his behalf, to retain the documents during his absence from the jurisdiction, and to apply the remitted money towards the acquisition.
George Samuel Bryan stated that he first visited the Country (Gambia) in 2014, returned on subsequent occasions and eventually relocated here in 2019. He alleged that upon his relocation, the Defendant’s (Sohna Sallah) attitude towards him changed; she denied him access to parts of the property, reported him to immigration and police authorities, refused to produce original land documents, and claimed ownership of properties towards which, he maintained, she had contributed nothing.
He further alleged that he later discovered that both their names appeared on certain documents and that the Defendant explained this was because non-Gambians could not own land.
He asked the court to declare him the sole legal and beneficial owner of both properties, to order that any joint documentation reflected a trust in his favour, to grant him immediate possession of the suit properties, and to award general damages for dishonesty, misrepresentation and breach of trust, together with D100,000.00 in legal and administrative expenses, and costs.
Sohna Sallah’s case was a different narrative. She admitted the relationship and the Islamic marriage but strongly denied that she ever acted as a trustee, agent or nominee for the Plaintiff. She stated that she was introduced to Bryan around 2005, and that it was he who indicated an intention to marry her and to convert to Islam. She said the Plaintiff failed to appear in the country (Gambia) for several years, during which she got on with her life, work and business.
Regarding the first property, the 30m x 35m land, she stated that she purchased it from a man called Adam Ndimbalan through instalment payments before the Plaintiff (George Samuel Bryan) became involved in her life.
She said she had paid D40,000.00 towards the purchase price from her own resources before the Plaintiff later provided D15,000.00 as a gift to settle the balance, because he was pleased that she had secured land where they could stay when he came to The Gambia. She said she placed his name on the title documents out of love and affection, following his conversion to Islam on her account.
With respect to the second property, the 28m x 30m land parcel, she conceded that the Plaintiff (George Samuel Bryan) contributed funds towards its purchase during the relationship, but maintained that she too negotiated the acquisition, protected the transaction, contributed to development and fencing, and was therefore entitled to at least an equal beneficial interest.
Sohna Sallah sought a declaration that she was the legal and rightful owner in possession of the 30m x 35m property as customary tenant and/or deemed lessee; an order ejecting the Plaintiff (George Samuel Bryan) from that property and an injunction restraining him and his agents from interfering with it; a declaration that both parties were common owners of the 28m x 30m property with equal beneficial interest; an order for the sale of that property by the Sheriff and equal distribution of proceeds; D300,000.00 in administrative and legal expenses; and costs.
The Plaintiff (George Samuel Bryan) relied on his own witness statement, stressing the receipts of money transfers and asserting that he funded the entire purchase and construction of both properties without any financial contribution from the Defendant (Sohna Sallah).
He relied on the fact that, when he requested the original land documents, he discovered that both their names appeared on some of them, which he said were inconsistent with Sohna’s prior explanation that the land had been bought on his behalf.
The Defendant (Sohna Sallah) relied on her own statement and on the testimonies of Adam Ndimbalan, Muhammed Sallah and Nani Juwara. Adam Ndimbalan’s evidence was significant because he was the vendor of the 30m x 35m property.
Adam Ndimbalan testified that he purchased the land from one Eldu Gassama and later sold it to Sohna, that she accepted his offer, agreed to the purchase price, and paid it in instalments through Alh. Muhammed Sallah. Upon completion, an agreement acknowledging full payment was drawn up naming the Sohna (Defendant) as the new owner.
Muhammed Sallah’s evidence materially corroborated the Defendant’s (Sohna) account. He confirmed that she purchased the 30m x 35m land for D55,000.00, that she had already paid D40,000.00 before the Plaintiff later contributed D15,000.00, and that this later sum was treated as a gift to clear the outstanding balance.
He also confirmed that the Defendant (Sohna) had independent means and used her own resources to begin construction, though the Plaintiff subsequently contributed to that process.
Nani Juwara’s evidence confirmed that the Plaintiff converted to Islam in 2013 at the Brusubi/Tranquil Mosque and was given the name Momodou Lamin Bryan, and that he had helped transport cement blocks from Muhammed Sallah’s house to the Mamuda property.
The Defendant’s (Sohna) own statement gave detailed evidence that she had purchased the 30m x 35m property independently, included the Plaintiff’s name out of affection, and had invested D50,000.00 initially sent for a car in building a structure and fence on the 28m x 30m parcel to secure it.
Before evaluating the evidence, Justice Jaiteh set out the legal framework at length. He anchored the court’s approach in Section 141(1) of the Evidence Act 1994, which places the burden of proof upon the party asserting the existence of a fact. Citing the Supreme Court in The O’ Corporation Limited v T.K. Motors Limited [2014–2015] GSCLR 1, he reaffirmed that a plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defence.
For the standard of proof, Justice Jaiteh invoked Lord Denning’s formulation in Miller v Minister of Pensions (1947) 2 All ER 372 that the civil standard is satisfied where the tribunal can say the matter is more probable than not while noting that allegations of fraud, dishonesty, breach of trust and misrepresentation require cogent and compelling evidence proportionate to the gravity of the allegation, following Re H (Minors) (Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) [1996] AC 563.
On proof of title to land, Justice Jaiteh drew on Fatou Badjie and 4 Others v Joseph Bassen (2002–2008) Vol. 2 GLR, which recognised five principal methods: traditional evidence; production of documents of title; acts of ownership extending over a sufficient period; acts of long possession; and proof of possession of connected or adjacent land.
Justice Jaiteh noted that where competing claims exist, the inquiry must go beyond the name on a document to examine the origin of title, the source of the purchase money, possession, development, occupation and the entire surrounding circumstances.
On trust law, Justice Jaiteh canvassed the doctrines of resulting and constructive trusts. He cited Lord Browne-Wilkinson in Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council (1996) AC 669 on resulting trusts and Lord Diplock in Gissing v Gissing (1971) AC 886 on constructive trusts.
It also drew on Pettitt v Pettitt (1970) AC 777, where the House of Lords warned against the mechanical application of commercial presumptions in matrimonial property disputes, and Burns v Burns [1984] Ch 317, which held that not every financial or domestic contribution during a relationship amounts to proprietary ownership.
For joint ownership disputes, Justice Jaiteh relied on Stack v Dowden (2007) UKHL 17, where Baroness Hale held that the starting point where there is joint legal ownership is joint beneficial ownership, and on Jones v Kernott (2011) UKSC 53, which confirmed that the court must ascertain from the whole course of conduct whether parties intended joint ownership and in what proportions.
Justice Jaiteh also applied Section 43 of the Women’s (Amendment) Act 2021, which requires a court determining equitable shares in matrimonial property to consider property accumulated by the joint industry of husband and wife during marriage; contributions made by a woman in developing and improving property acquired before the marriage; and contributions made by a woman in raising and caring for the family throughout the marriage.
Justice Jaiteh observed that the provision acknowledged domestic labour, supervision, emotional support, preservation of family property and management of affairs as relevant considerations in determining equitable ownership, not merely direct cash payments.
The reasoning and findings of Justice Jaiteh. Issue One: Sole Ownership of Both Properties. Justice Jaiteh found that the Plaintiff did indeed send substantial sums of money to the Defendant (Sohna) over a considerable period, and that the Sohna herself candidly admitted receiving those remittances.
However, Justice Jaiteh held that the mere proof of remittances does not automatically translate into proof of land ownership. The determinative question, he found, was whether those remittances were intended and utilised for the acquisition and development of the suit properties, and whether the Defendant (Sohna) held them solely in trust for the Plaintiff.
Justice Jaiteh found that the Plaintiff had failed to sufficiently trace the remittances to the acquisition of each property. He sparties were in a prolonged intimate relationship and subsequent marriage, and the monies exchanged between them extended to household support, upkeep, transportation, communication expenses, rent and personal welfare not merely land transactions.
Justice Jaiteh held it would be speculation, rather than judicial determination grounded in evidence, to presume a resulting trust merely because financial assistance passed from one spouse to another. There must be clear evidence linking the alleged purchase money to the acquisition of the specific property in dispute. Issue One was accordingly resolved against the Plaintiff.
Issue two: Trust in favour of the Plaintiff. Justice Jaiteh found no written declaration of trust, no trust deed, memorandum, agreement, acknowledgment or instrument showing that the Defendant (Sohna) expressly agreed to hold either property solely on the Plaintiff’s behalf. On the 30m x 35m property, the evidence of Adam Ndimbalan — the vendor was treated as compelling because he was a disinterested witness going directly to the root of ownership and acquisition. His account was not substantially shaken.
On the 28m x 30m property, Justice Jaiteh noted that both names were deliberately inserted in the title documentation and that the Defendant had participated in negotiations, supervision, preservation and development.
Justice Jaiteh found that even the Plaintiff’s stronger equitable footing on that second parcel fell short of establishing an exclusive trust in his favour. Issue two was also resolved against the Plaintiff.
Issue three: The Defendant’s ownership of the 30m x 35m Property. Having found that the Plaintiff failed to establish a trust, Justice Jaiteh proceeded to consider the Defendant’s positive claim to the 30m x 35m property. Justice Jaiteh held that the Defendant had established a superior and more credible claim to ownership.
Firstly, she gave a detailed and coherent account of how she acquired the property from Adam Ndimbalan through instalment payments. Secondly, that account was independently corroborated by Ndimbalan himself, the alleged vendor and source of title, who confirmed the Defendant was recognised and treated as the purchaser throughout.
Thirdly, Muhammed Sallah confirmed that the Defendant had already paid D40,000.00 from her own resources before the Plaintiff’s D15,000.00 merely liquidated the outstanding balance. Fourthly, the Defendant’s evidence regarding construction, development and supervision was materially supported by Nani Juwara and Muhammed Sallah, whose testimonies demonstrated active acts of ownership and possession over time.
Justice Jaiteh was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the Defendant had established a better title to the 30m x 35m property. Issue three was resolved in the Defendant’s (Sohna) favour.
Issue four: The 28m x 30m property joint ownership. Justice Jaiteh approached the 28m x 30m property on materially different legal footing. He said the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated that it was acquired, developed and preserved during the subsistence of the parties’ intimate relationship and subsequent marriage, with both parties playing active and meaningful roles, albeit in different ways and to varying degrees. Both names were deliberately included in the title documentation.
Justice Jaiteh added that Plaintiff contributed financially to the acquisition; the Defendant contributed through participation in negotiations, management, supervision, preservation and development. The property was treated by both parties as relationship or family property during their union.
He said the Plaintiff’s explanation that the Defendant’s name was inserted merely because non-Gambians could not own was rejected.
“No statutory provision, governmental restriction, expert evidence or legal instrument was placed before the court to substantiate that assertion,”
Furthermore, Justice Jaiteh noted, even if such a representation had been made, the Plaintiff had voluntarily authorised or acquiesced in the insertion of the Defendant’s name on the documentation.
Equity does not permit a party to approbate and reprobate simultaneously,” Justice Jaiteh stated
Applying Stack v Dowden, Jones v Kernott and Section 43 of the Women’s (Amendment) Act 2021, Justice Jaiteh held that the totality of the evidence pointed irresistibly to joint beneficial ownership in equal shares. The Plaintiff’s attempt to exclude the Defendant from any beneficial interest was fundamentally inconsistent with the objective evidence surrounding the transaction. Issue four was resolved by declaring both parties equal beneficial owners of the 28m x 30m property.
Issue five: Damages, trespass, dishonesty, misrepresentation and reach of Trust. The Plaintiff’s claims for general damages for dishonesty, misrepresentation and breach of trust were dismissed. Justice Jaiteh held that since the Plaintiff had failed to establish the existence of any trust vesting exclusive beneficial ownership in him, his claims of breach of trust and dishonesty lacked the foundational premise upon which they rested. Mere disappointment arising from the collapse of a relationship or disagreement over property could not, without more, be elevated to actionable dishonesty.
On the Defendant’s trespass claim over the 30m x 35m property, Justice Jaiteh found that the Plaintiff entered and resided on the property during the subsistence of the relationship and marriage his original entry was therefore neither forcible nor unlawful.
While his continued occupation after the breakdown of the relationship and the subsequent ownership dispute may have interfered with the Defendant’s possessory rights, the evidence did not establish the precise date on which his occupation became unlawful or quantify the damage caused. Damages for trespass were not awarded; instead, the court awarded nominal damages of D100,000.00 to vindicate the Defendant’s possessory rights.
Both parties’ claims for special damages in administrative and legal expenses D100,000.00 for the Plaintiff and D300,000.00 for the Defendant were refused, as neither produced receipts, invoices, contractual documents or other satisfactory evidential foundations.
Justice Jaiteh reiterated the settled principle that special damages must be strictly proved and cannot be awarded on speculation or assertion.
The final orders. The Plaintiff’s claims for sole ownership of both properties, breach of trust, misrepresentation, general damages, immediate possession and D100,000.00 in legal expenses were dismissed. The Defendant’s Counterclaim succeeded in part. Accordingly, the court made the following orders:
1. It is hereby declared that Sohna Sallah is the legal and beneficial owner entitled to possession of the property at Mamuda Village measuring approximately 30m x 35m, subject to perfection of any necessary customary or statutory land documentation.
2. George Samuel Bryan shall vacate the said 30m x 35m property and deliver possession to the Defendant within sixty (60) days of the date of this Judgment.
3. Bryan, whether by himself, his servants, agents, privies or any person claiming through him, is restrained from entering, letting, building upon, assigning, mortgaging, selling, applying for transfer documents or a state lease over, or otherwise interfering with the Defendant’s quiet possession and ownership of the 30m x 35m property.
4. It is hereby declared that Bryan and Sallah are joint beneficial owners, in equal shares, of the property at Mamuda Village measuring approximately 28m x 30m.
5. The parties shall, within thirty (30) days of this Judgment, jointly appoint a licensed valuer for the 28m x 30m property. If they fail to agree, the Sheriff of the High Court shall appoint one.
6. Upon receipt of the valuation report, either party may, within thirty (30) days, buy out the other party’s 50% beneficial interest at the assessed market value.
7. If neither party exercises the buy-out option, the 28m x 30m property shall be sold by private treaty under the Sheriff’s supervision. If that private sale fails within ninety (90) days, the Sheriff shall conduct a public sale and the net proceeds, after lawful expenses, shall be distributed equally.
8. The Plaintiff’s claims for general damages for dishonesty, misrepresentation and breach of trust, for D100,000.00 in administrative/legal expenses, and for immediate possession of both properties are dismissed.
9. The Defendant’s claims for substantial damages for trespass and for D300,000.00 in administrative and legal expenses are dismissed for want of strict proof.
10. The Defendant is awarded nominal damages
