By Mamajah Jalloh
Harding Sesay and Partners took centre stage in the ongoing vehicle case involving two lawyers accused of defrauding a businessman of US$114,000 through the alleged acquisition of three Toyota 4Runner vehicles have completed the prosecution stage of their trial, with the defence now seeking to have the case dismissed through a no-case submission.
The accused, 34-year-old Maurice Jenner Mohamed Seisay and 35-year-old John Mans made another appearance before Magistrate Mustapha Brima Jah of Pademba Road Court No.1 on Monday, 24th August, 2026, on two count charges of conspiracy to defraud and obtaining property by false pretences, contrary to Section 32(1) of the Larceny Act 1916.
According to the particulars of the charges, between November 1 and 30, 2023, at Harding Sesay and Partners Law Firm, No. 49 Dundas Street, Freetown, the accused allegedly conspired with other persons unknown to defraud businessman Bockarie Conteh.
Count two further alleged that during the same period and at the same location, the accused obtained three Toyota 4Runner vehicles, valued at US$114,000, belonging to Conteh, on the representation that payment would be made within 30 working days, knowing the representation to be false.
When the charges were read and explained to the defendants, no plea was taken because it is committal proceedings.
Yusuf Isaac Sesay appeared for the State, while J.M. Gengo and M.C. Necole Wilson associated with the defence.
The Defence counsel J.M. Gengo informed the court that the written no-case submission had been prepared and served on the state counsel Yusuf Sesay and also with a copy sent to the Registrar as the defence would rely on the written submission and sought leave to make additional oral submissions.
He argued that certain documents, including police statements and other materials that were not dated in 2026, should not be relied upon in the proceedings, describing them as documents originating from the other side.
The state counsel Yusuf Sesay told the court that he had only received the defence’s no-case submission a few minutes earlier and argued that the defence was expected to serve the prosecution with their submission in 48 hours advance, but had perused the document and was ready to address its substance by organising it around several issues, including the exhibits tendered before the court, the circumstances surrounding the supply of the three vehicles and how the complainant came to meet the alleged investor.
He addressed the role of lawyers in preparing agreements between parties by arguing that the involvement of lawyers in such transactions could become relevant when those same lawyers later became witnesses in proceedings arising from the transaction and drew the court’s attention to Section 113 of the Criminal Procedure Act No. 8 of 2024, that the proceedings formed part of the continuing investigative and judicial process leading to committal.
Sesay urged the court to consider the evidence showing how the complainant allegedly came to know the investor through the accused as he did not previously know the alleged investor and only came into contact with him through the first and second defendants, whom he trusted and relied upon in their capacity as lawyers.
He pointed out that the second defendant was not only the complainant’s legal representative, but his cousin, which he argued should strengthen the level of trust placed in him, and placed emphasis on a document prepared under the name “Harding Sesay and Partners,” chambers which showed the involvement of the two defendants who were partners at the law firm.
Sesay maintained that the lawyers had represented the parties in the transaction and that their role in the preparation of the agreement could not simply be separated from the allegations now before the court, adding that what may begin as a civil transaction can, depending on the circumstances and evidence, give rise to criminal liability.
He urged the court not to accept the defence’s no-case submission, arguing that the evidence already before the court justified the continuation of the proceedings toward committal, and the matter remained before the Magistrate for determination of the issues raised by both sides.
Meanwhile, magistrate Jah refused bail and sent both defendants to the male correctional facility centre in Freetown and adjourned the matter to the 27th August 2026, for further proceedings.
