Court Hears Testimony from U.S.-Based Witness in Ongoing Land Dispute

A land dispute matter before the court took a critical turn today as testimony from a United States-based witness sparked legal arguments over the admissibility of key portions of evidence.

During the proceedings, the court heard from Abdulia Sheriff, a Programme Director based in Shakopee, Minnesota, who was called to confirm his involvement in the case and authenticate a statement he had previously made, which was tendered as evidence.

Sheriff confirmed that the statement presented in court was indeed his. However, the defense immediately raised objections to specific portions of the document, arguing that parts of the testimony amounted to hearsay and should not be admitted.

The defense particularly challenged paragraphs 8 and 9 of Sheriff’s statement. According to defense counsel, those sections were based largely on what the plaintiff had told Sheriff, including allegations relating to social media blackmail. The defense argued that such assertions were not direct evidence but rather opinions and second-hand information, which they said should not form part of the court’s record.

In response, the plaintiff’s lawyer maintained that the disputed portions merely reflected conversations between Sheriff and the plaintiff. Counsel argued that given the relationship between the witness and the plaintiff, the statements were admissible. He further pointed out that the defense had ample opportunity to challenge the credibility of those claims during cross-examination.

Under cross-examination, Sheriff admitted that he is related to one of the parties involved in the dispute. He told the court that in 2010, the plaintiff had discussed plans to build a house in Sierra Leone but clarified that he was not involved in the actual purchase of the land.

When questioned about financial transactions, Sheriff acknowledged that he had received money intended for the plaintiff. The defense pressed him on the timeline, suggesting that the funds were received in 2013 rather than 2011. Sheriff, however, firmly maintained that he received the money in 2011.

The cross-examiner also drew attention to paragraph 9 of Sheriff’s statement, which claimed that the plaintiff purchased four town lots but received only two. Sheriff stood by that assertion. However, when asked whether the plaintiff had persistently demanded the remaining land over the years, he said he could not recall. He also confirmed that the plaintiff did not accept an alternative parcel of land allegedly offered to her.

Following the exchanges, the court did not deliver any ruling on the objections raised. The matter was adjourned to March 10, 2026, for further hearing as the legal battle over the contested land continues.