Justice A. T. Ganda’s ruling on the application filed by Thomas Daddy Brima and Aminata Bangura, the first and second Applicants, respectively, against the Sierra Leone Football Association and its Acting General Secretary as first and second Respondents, respectively, on 29 July 2025, is, in many respects, both doctrinally sound and procedurally instructive. It affirms, among other things, that judicial intervention in the affairs of sporting associations must be exercised with caution and is only entertained when all internal mechanisms have been duly exhausted.
By an Ex Parte Notice of Motion, the Applicants sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the Respondents, including themselves, their agents, assigns, privies, or representatives, from organizing, holding, or otherwise proceeding with the election of the SLFA Executive Committee members scheduled for Saturday, 2 August 2025. The Applicants asked the court to issue an injunction against the elective Congress pending the hearing and determination of their respective appeals to the SLFA, as outlined in Article 71 of the Ethics Code 2020 and Article 32.2 of the Disciplinary Code 2020.
The matter first came up for hearing on 21 July 2025 when the Applicants’ counsel moved the court for an interim injunction. However, the Judge did not grant the same, considering the nature of the application. Instead, he ordered the Respondents to be served with the application, and the matter was adjourned to 23 July 2025.
On the adjourned date, the court heard submissions from both sides. The core of the Applicants’ argument was that the decision by the Ethics Board to disqualify them from contesting in the 2 August elective Congress was made in error. They informed the court that they had filed an appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sports, but claimed that there were no fixed timelines for when the matter would be heard and decided.
A key issue was the capacity of the Applicants. The Respondents strongly argued that the Applicants lacked locus standi to file the said action because they were not members of the SLFA, as specified in Article 10 of the Association’s Constitution. The court agreed with this argument, noting that the first applicant’s lack of membership was a fatal flaw in his ability to sue. Likewise, a person cannot claim a right within an organization of which they are not a member. This conclusion, grounded firmly in both fact and law, resolved a fundamental jurisdictional question.
The court, unimpressed with the reasons provided by the Applicants, dismissed the application, noting that after reviewing the entire application, the applicants would not face any prejudice if it were refused. Instead, the court observed that granting the relief sought could negatively impact the rights of other individuals who are not involved in the case. Furthermore, the court stated that if the relief were granted, it would be considered an interference in football matters by FIFA, based on the reasons presented by the Respondents.
The ruling correctly emphasized a key principle in football disputes – the exhaustion of internal remedies. The decision syncs with established jurisprudence that courts should not bypass agreed-upon mechanisms for internal resolution unless these remedies are clearly futile or insufficient. In other words, while courts are always willing to assist citizens seeking justice, the authority to issue an injunction is extraordinary and should be exercised with caution and careful consideration.
The ruling addressed the doctrine of balance of convenience, a guiding principle in deciding whether to grant or deny injunctive relief. The court was convinced that the Applicants’ conduct was not only procedurally flawed but also hastily strategic. The judge noted that the internal appeals process was still ongoing and that the Ethics Code did not automatically stay proceedings. The Applicants’ decision to take the matter to the High Court while those internal processes were still pending made the application not just premature but also procedurally abusive.
Another factor was the sufficiency of damages. The Applicants had promised to pay damages if the injunction should not have been granted, but the court expressed doubt about their ability to fulfill that promise. The court concluded that the potential harm to the Respondents outweighed the uncertain harm claimed by the Applicants. In weighing the fairness, it declined to grant a remedy that, if reversed, would not provide adequate restitution.
Regarding costs, the court took a principled stance. Counsel for the Respondents requested costs of NLe150,000 per Applicant. The court, exercising its discretion under the general rule that costs follow the event, awarded NLe240,000 against the Applicants. The point was unequivocal – parties who recklessly litigate in defiance of constitutional provisions or violate internal procedures will face financial consequences.
This ruling should act as a warning to those who try to use judicial forums as extensions of their political strategies within sporting bodies. The judicial branch is not meant for speculative litigation, nor should it serve as a parallel tribunal when clearly defined dispute resolution processes are available and go unused. Justice Ganda’s decision is a strong reminder that the court is not a place for forum shopping. That audi alteram partem must start within the institution whose decisions are being challenged.
Ultimately, the ruling maintained institutional independence while confirming the separation between courts of law and private associations governed by their own constitutions. It was a reaffirmation of pacta sunt servanda – agreements must be honored – and of the core principle that parties who agree to internal rules cannot ignore them for tactical reasons. The Applicants, by bypassing those procedures, received no sympathy from a court rightly more focused on preserving the integrity of the legal process than on allowing procedural gambits.
If anything, the ruling establishes a precedent and a judicial stance that will discourage the abuse of ex parte applications to disrupt administrative stability in sports or any other voluntary organization. The electoral process at SLFA now continues, and let it do so under conditions of transparency, order, and constitutional fidelity.
Let the law remain the law.
