The High Court of Sierra Leone (General Civil Division) has dismissed an application for an interlocutory injunction filed by Thomas Daddy Brima and Aminata Bangura against the Sierra Leone Football Association (SLFA) and its Acting Secretary General.
The ruling, delivered on July 23, 2025, by Justice Alfred A. Ganda, concluded that the application lacked merit and was premature.
The applicants sought to restrain the SLFA from proceeding with the election of its Executive Committee, scheduled for July 26, 2025, at the Gateway Hotel in Freetown. Brima, the current SLFA president, and Bangura contested their disqualification by the SLFA Ethics Committee, alleging procedural errors and lack of due process. Brima claimed he was nominated and endorsed for the presidency but was unfairly disqualified, while Bangura argued her integrity checks were incomplete due to a failure to provide fingerprints for clearance.
The court found that the applicants failed to exhaust internal remedies as required by the 2019 SLFA Constitution and regulations, particularly Article 66, which mandates disputes be resolved through the Court of Arbitration for Sports before approaching ordinary courts.
The respondents, represented by counsel, argued that the applicants lacked the capacity to institute the action, citing Bangura’s non-membership in the SLFA and Brima’s unverified clearance certificate.
Justice Ganda ruled that the application did not meet the principles for granting an interlocutory injunction, including the balance of convenience and adequacy of damages.
He emphasized that damages could adequately compensate the applicants if the respondents’ actions were later deemed wrongful, provided an undertaking to pay damages was given. The court also noted the absence of a prima facie case or serious issue to be tried.
The application was dismissed with costs, with each applicant ordered to pay NLe150,000 (One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Leones), totaling NLe240,000 (Two Hundred and Forty Thousand Leones) to the respondents.
Counsel for the applicants argued the decision was reached in error and an appeal is pending, but the court upheld the respondents’ position.
