Dispute Over Freetown Property: Plaintiff Claims $10,000 in Unfulfilled Transaction

Dispute Over Freetown Property: Plaintiff Claims $10,000 in Unfulfilled Transaction

In a significant development in a high-profile land dispute, Marie Sesay, the plaintiff and niece of Dr. Richard Konteh, provided testimony before the Freetown High Court. Ms. Sesay presented various receipts and bank statements to corroborate her claim that she transferred a total of $10,000 to the defendant’s United States bank account.

According to the testimony, these funds were designated for the acquisition and subsequent fencing of four town plots. The defendant, however, continues to contest these claims.

The evidence submitted directly contradicts Dr. Konteh's previous assertions that no such payments were received. Ms. Sesay’s detailed account, supported by documentary proof, seeks to validate her legal rights over the property in question.

Represented by counsel Augustine S. Marrah, Ms. Sesay—who currently resides in the United States—detailed three specific transactions made to Dr. Konteh’s Chase Bank account: $5,000 on March 25, 2010; $3,000 on April 19, 2010; and a final $2,000 on March 19, 2011, which was intended for site fencing.

The court heard that based on a 2010 valuation of $2,000 per plot, the plaintiff intended to purchase four plots. She clarified that despite her payments, she never received the appropriate legal conveyance for the full area. Instead, she was presented with a conveyance for only two plots, which she rejected on the grounds that it did not reflect the agreed-upon transaction.

Ms. Sesay further refuted the defendant’s claims regarding her interactions with third parties, stating that communications regarding the conveyance continued through 2012. She alleged that Dr. Konteh eventually instructed her to return the insufficient documents, and that an intermediary later admitted the correct conveyance had not been delivered.

During a 2014 visit to Sierra Leone, the plaintiff discovered that the land offered did not meet the specified requirements. She testified that the defendant eventually admitted to having limited knowledge of the site's status. Ms. Sesay emphasized that the $10,000 was a commercial payment for four fenced plots and was not intended as a gift.

Despite numerous assurances over several years, the plaintiff maintained that she has received neither the property nor the legal title. Subsequent attempts to resolve the matter in 2015 and 2017 similarly failed to produce the agreed-upon four-plot conveyance.

Despite repeated assurances over the years, Sesay testified she has yet to receive the land or proper conveyance. 

Her subsequent visits in 2015 and follow-up through a third party in 2017 yielded only the rejected two-plot conveyance.

Under cross-examination, Ms. Sesay provided bank slips to support her pursuit of the recovery of property at Mamah Street, Gloucester, alongside the $2,000 paid for fencing. She is currently seeking a total recovery of $8,000 for the land and associated costs.

The court has adjourned the proceedings, with the next hearing scheduled for March 27, 2026.