By Mariama Marong
Magistrate Isatou Jallow of the Kanifing Revising Court has dismissed an application by Sulayman Fadera to reopen eight voter registration cases. She ruled that Fadera failed to give a satisfactory explanation for his absence when the matters were scheduled for hearing.
The ruling means the eight objectees will have their names retained on the voter list. An application to relist a case means Fadera wants his eight cases that were struck out to be put back on the court’s list so that they can be heard again. In this case, Fadera wanted the court to restore the eight matters after they were struck out following his failure to attend the case on the date it was scheduled for hearing.
The eight objectees are Mariama Bailo Barry, Lamarana Barry, Musu Passewa, Mamadou Nasir Jallow, Muhammad Jallow, Alimou Jallow, Momodou Rasidi Jallow and Musa Camara. Counsel Paul Senghore represented Fadera, the objector, while Senior Counsel Haruna Farage appeared for the eight objectees.
In an application dated 22 September 2026, Fadera’s lawyer asked the court to relist the cases and make any further orders it considered appropriate. The application was supported by a 14-paragraph affidavit and relied on Section 7(2) of the Subordinate Courts Civil Procedure Act. Counsel Senghore urged the court to grant the application in the interest of justice, drawing particular attention to paragraphs one to ten of the supporting affidavit. But Counsel Farage opposed the request, arguing that the application had failed to meet the legal requirements for restoring the cases.
He submitted that although Fadera’s lawyer was reportedly ill, arrangements could have been made for another lawyer from his office or a clerk to follow up on the proceedings and obtain the hearing dates. The court was also informed that Counsel P. Senghore had appeared for the objector on the scheduled date but could not proceed because Fadera himself was absent. Counsel Farage urged Magistrate Jallow to dismiss the application, warning that restoring the cases would cause further delays in an electoral process in which the eight objectees were waiting to know the outcome of the challenges to their voter registration status.
In her ruling, Magistrate Jallow expressed reservations about the account presented in the supporting affidavit, particularly paragraphs seven to ten, which she described as false and misleading. She noted that although P. Senghore had appeared on behalf of the objector, he could neither explain Fadera’s whereabouts nor provide reasons for his absence when the cases were scheduled for hearing.
The magistrate maintained that parties who institute court proceedings have a duty to follow up on their cases and remain informed about the dates and times fixed for hearings. She said that even if the objector’s lawyer had left court without obtaining the hearing dates, the responsibility rested with his office, representative or clerk to make the necessary inquiries. The court or the opposing lawyers could not be expected to provide that information. Magistrate Jallow said the same responsibility applied to Fadera as the person who initiated the cases.
The court acknowledged that Section 7(2) of the Subordinate Courts Civil Procedure Act allows a case to be struck out when a plaintiff fails to appear, while also providing a route for the case to be restored if sufficient cause is shown. However, she also referred to Section 7(3) of the Act, which requires plaintiffs to ascertain the dates and times fixed for their cases and stated that ignorance of a hearing date or time is not grounds for an adjournment.
The magistrate further cited Section 30 of the Elections Act, which provides for the application of relevant provisions of the Subordinate Courts Civil Procedure Act in electoral matters. She said the cases had been struck out because of Fadera’s absence and maintained that the court had afforded him every opportunity to ensure a fair hearing. Although the court acknowledged that the his lawyer had been ill, Magistrate Jallow said this did not determine the outcome because another lawyer had appeared on his behalf.
The central issue was Fadera’s own failure to attend court without providing a satisfactory explanation. Invoking the legal principle that “justice delayed is justice denied”, the magistrate stressed the need to prevent unnecessary delays, particularly in electoral cases where the voting status of the parties concerned was at stake.
She consequently ruled that restoring the cases would not be in the interest of justice and dismissed Fadera’s application. Following the dismissal, the court ordered that the names of the eight objectees be retained on the voter list. Their voter card numbers are to be recorded in the court order.