The Bundung High Court on Thursday dismissed an application by the Manjai Kunda Village Management Development Committee, the Plaintiff in a civil suit, seeking to halt the management of Manjai Football Park. Justice Isatou Janneh refused all four substantive interim applications requested by the Plaintiff. The application, which aimed to secure an interlocutory injunction, was brought by the Manjai Kunda Village Management Development Committee, the Plaintiff in the ongoing civil suit.
The Manjai Kunda Village Management Development Committee had asked the Court to grant an interlocutory injunction to restrain the Defendants from interfering with, entering upon, managing, administering, or otherwise using the football park until the case's final determination. The Defendants in the suit include Babucarr Jaiteh, Aja Kaddish Jaiteh, Batch Samba Ceesay, Muhammed Njie, Bakary Sanyang, Cherno Jobe, Kebba Touray, Zakaria Bah, Francis Mendy, Abu B. Jallow, Furu Correa, Abu Bilal, Kara Njie, Muhammed Marigo, Ebrima Sama, Musa Jallow, Haddy Fofana, Pa Amat Foon, and Ousman Sarr. Justice Janneh refused the requested interim orders, which included restraining the Defendants from managing and using the football park, depositing revenues with the Sheriff, accounting for revenues since 2017, and an order against the second Defendant. Specifically, the Plaintiff had sought an order requiring the first Defendant to provide an account of all revenue collected from the facility since 2017, and an order restraining the second Defendant from interfering with its administration and control of the property.
Committee's Claims and Demands
The Manjai Kunda Village Management Development Committee argued that Manjai Football Park, also known as the Father Gough Sports Complex, constitutes customary land belonging to the Manjai Kunda community. The Committee asserted that it manages the facility on behalf of the community. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendants acted without authority by organizing football tournaments, social events, and sponsorship arrangements at the facility. The Committee further alleged that the Defendants permitted billboard advertising and entered into agreements with third parties, thereby excluding the Committee from the facility's management. It was also claimed by the Committee that the Defendants failed to remit agreed shares of revenue since 2017.
Ismail Camara, the Alkalo of Manjai Kunda Village, maintained that the Plaintiff is the legally recognized body responsible for administering community property under the Local Government Act. Mr. Camara insisted that the football park was customary land belonging to the Manjai Kunda community. He relied on several documents to support the Plaintiff’s position, including a declaration dated 19 June 2026, a sketch plan of the property, and an agreement dated 16 August 2025. The Plaintiff contended that the agreement acknowledged its entitlement to a share of revenue generated from the facility. Counsel for the Plaintiff argued that the application satisfied the legal principles governing interlocutory injunctions. The Plaintiff’s counsel submitted that serious issues regarding the ownership, management, and revenue generated from the football park needed to be tried. The Plaintiff’s lawyer also argued that the balance of convenience favoured protecting the Committee’s alleged rights until the substantive case could be heard and determined.
The Plaintiff had also alternatively asked the Court to order that all revenue generated from the facility be deposited with the Sheriff of The Gambia. This request was part of their broader effort to ensure transparency and accountability for the income derived from the football park, pending the final resolution of the dispute. The Committee's legal team showed the importance of these interim measures to prevent further alleged mismanagement and financial discrepancies.
Defendants' Counterarguments
The application by the Plaintiff was opposed by the first Defendant through an affidavit sworn by Babucarr Jaiteh, President of the Manjai Sports Association. The Manjai Sports Association denied the allegations made by the Plaintiff and argued that the football park is located within Kotu. The Association further stated that the facility falls under the ownership and administration of the Kanifing Municipal Council. Mr. Jaiteh maintained that the Manjai Sports Association had always dealt directly with the Council concerning the management of the facility. The Association also denied that any revenue-sharing agreement existed between the Association and the Plaintiff.
The Defendant argued that the Manjai Sports Association represents various sporting clubs and youth organisations that use the facility. Counsel for the first Defendant warned that granting the injunction would disrupt sporting activities at the football park, negatively affecting young people and the wider community. Therefore, counsel for the first Defendant urged the Court to dismiss the application. The Defendant argued that the dispute involved contested questions of ownership which could only be properly determined after a full trial. Counsel for the Defendant further contended that granting the injunction would effectively determine the substantive dispute before the parties had presented their full cases. The Defendant maintained that any financial loss suffered by the Plaintiff could be compensated through damages. The judge emphasised that the ruling did not determine the ownership, management, or proprietary rights over the football park itself.
Court's Ruling and Orders
Justice Isatou Janneh ordered all parties to preserve the Manjai Football Park property and maintain proper records of revenue generated from the facility until the conclusion of the case. The Plaintiff had requested that all revenue generated from the facility be deposited with the Sheriff of The Gambia as an alternative measure. Additionally, the Plaintiff sought an order compelling the first Defendant to provide an account of all revenue collected from the facility since 2017. The Committee also requested an order restraining the second Defendant from interfering with its administration and control of the property. However, Justice Janneh refused all four substantive interim applications, including these specific requests.
Justice Janneh acknowledged that the dispute raised substantial issues requiring determination at trial. The Court held that making findings on the disputed questions of ownership and management would be inappropriate at the interlocutory stage. It found that the Plaintiff had not established sufficient grounds for the interlocutory injunctions it had requested. This judicial finding was a key factor in the dismissal of the interim applications.
The Court ordered both parties not to sell, alienate, or lease the Manjai Football Park, also known as the Father Gough Sports Complex. It further prohibited the parties from creating third-party proprietary interests in the property. The Court also stipulated that no permanent structural development or alteration could be undertaken at the facility without its explicit leave. These restrictions will remain in place until the substantive case is concluded. Justice Janneh directed the Defendants to preserve proper accounts and records of all revenue generated from the football park, effective from the date of the ruling. These records are to be maintained pending the determination of the substantive suit, ensuring transparency and accountability for all financial transactions related to the facility during the ongoing legal process.