By Sainabou Sambou
The High Court in Banjul on Wednesday rejected a Jamaican national’s bid for sole ownership of two valuable parcels of land in Mamuda Village, ordering a division of the assets between him and his former Gambian wife instead.
Justice Ebrima Jaiteh delivered the detailed judgment on Wednesday, bringing to a close a protracted legal battle between George Samuel Bryan and Sohna Sallah. The case, which spanned several years, centered on two plots measuring approximately 30 meters by 35 meters and 28 meters by 30 meters in Kombo South District, West Coast Region.
Represented by Counsel A.M. Dabo, Bryan argued that he had solely financed the acquisition and development of both properties while living abroad. He told the court he remitted a total of D1,674,057.89 to Sallah between 2010 and 2019, insisting the funds were used to purchase and build on the land. Bryan claimed Sallah held the properties in trust for him and that any joint names on documents were added merely for convenience. He sought a declaration of sole ownership, damages for breach of trust and misrepresentation, and recovery of legal expenses.
Sallah, represented by Counsel I.K. Jallow, strongly contested these claims. She maintained that she independently purchased the larger 30m x 35m plot from seller Adam Ndimbalan in installments, both before and during the early stages of their relationship. According to her evidence, she had already paid the bulk of the purchase price when Bryan contributed D15,000, which she described as a gift born out of affection rather than an investment in ownership.
For the second, smaller plot, she acknowledged joint financial and developmental contributions and accepted equal ownership.
The court heard extensive testimony from both parties and independent witnesses. Adam Ndimbalan confirmed selling the first property directly to Sallah on installments. Witnesses Muhammed Sallah and Nani Juwara corroborated key aspects of her account, including that she had paid most of the price before Bryan’s contribution. Additional evidence noted Bryan’s conversion to Islam in 2013.
In his ruling, Justice Jaiteh emphasized that the core issue was not merely the transfer of money but whether Bryan could prove those funds were directly applied to the purchase and conferred exclusive ownership rights. The judge found that while substantial sums were sent, there was no clear documentary link tying them exclusively to the land acquisitions. Much of the money, the court determined, supported general household expenses and marital needs during the relationship.
On the 30m x 35m property, Justice Jaiteh accepted Sallah’s evidence, backed by independent witnesses, that she was the primary purchaser. Bryan’s later contribution was ruled as financial assistance within the marriage rather than a basis for ownership. The court declared Sallah the sole legal and beneficial owner and ordered Bryan to vacate the land within 60 days.
For the 28m x 30m property, the judge found both parties contributed to its acquisition and development. With both names on the title, a legal presumption of joint ownership applied. The court rejected Bryan’s assertion that Sallah’s name was included only for convenience, citing a lack of supporting evidence.
The ruling grants both parties equal beneficial ownership of the second plot. It directs that the property be professionally valued, after which either party may buy out the other’s share. In the event of a failure of agreement, the land will be sold under the supervision of the Sheriff of The Gambia, with the proceeds divided equally.
Justice Jaiteh dismissed Bryan’s broader claims for sole ownership, breach of trust, and damages. He also rejected Sallah’s counter-claim for D300,000 in legal expenses due to insufficient proof. However, the court awarded Sallah D100,000 in nominal damages for Bryan’s interference with her possessory rights over the first property following their separation. Bryan was further ordered to pay D50,000 in costs.
The judgment highlighted a broader principle: property disputes, even those arising from broken relationships, must be resolved strictly based on evidence and applicable law, not on assumptions or sentiments. “Both parties contributed during their time together,” Justice Jaiteh noted, “but neither succeeded in proving exclusive ownership over all disputed properties.”
