Court sets date for final brief adoption in AKI case
During Tuesday's proceedings, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, Loubna Farage, informed the court that the plaintiffs' written address, which was due on 17 July 2026, was eventually filed on 24 July after they awaited the second defendant's written address. "Our written address was due to be filed on the 17th of July 2026. We only managed to file on the 24th of July because we were waiting for the second defendant's written address since we do not have the right to reply," Farage submitted. She explained that because the plaintiffs had no right of reply, they intended to address any arguments raised by the second defendant in their principal written address. However, despite waiting, the second defendant had not filed its submissions, compelling the plaintiffs to proceed with filing their address before the matter returned to court. Farage further informed the court that the plaintiffs served their written address on the day it was filed and again effected service the following day. She acknowledged that the State had complied with the court's earlier directive by filing its written address on 28 June 2026. Counsel then moved a motion filed on 24 July 2026 seeking leave for the plaintiffs' written address to be filed out of time and deemed properly filed. She told the court that the application was supported by a 10-paragraph affidavit setting out the reasons for the delay and urged the court to grant the application as prayed. The supporting affidavit, sworn by Awa Anna Sanka, an Assistant Legal Secretary at Farage Andrews Law Practice, stated that the delay was neither deliberate nor in willful disregard of the court's orders but resulted from the plaintiffs' good-faith decision to await the second defendant's submissions. It further argued that no material prejudice would be suffered by the defendants, who would still have an opportunity to respond where necessary. After hearing the application, Justice Jaiteh granted the motion and ordered that the State and the second defendant be served with hearing notices. The matter was subsequently adjourned to Friday for the adoption of the parties' final written briefs.
Black News 
During Tuesday's proceedings, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, Loubna Farage, informed the court that the plaintiffs' written address, which was due on 17 July 2026, was eventually filed on 24 July after they awaited the second defendant's written address.
"Our written address was due to be filed on the 17th of July 2026. We only managed to file on the 24th of July because we were waiting for the second defendant's written address since we do not have the right to reply," Farage submitted.
She explained that because the plaintiffs had no right of reply, they intended to address any arguments raised by the second defendant in their principal written address. However, despite waiting, the second defendant had not filed its submissions, compelling the plaintiffs to proceed with filing their address before the matter returned to court.
Farage further informed the court that the plaintiffs served their written address on the day it was filed and again effected service the following day. She acknowledged that the State had complied with the court's earlier directive by filing its written address on 28 June 2026.
Counsel then moved a motion filed on 24 July 2026 seeking leave for the plaintiffs' written address to be filed out of time and deemed properly filed.
She told the court that the application was supported by a 10-paragraph affidavit setting out the reasons for the delay and urged the court to grant the application as prayed.
The supporting affidavit, sworn by Awa Anna Sanka, an Assistant Legal Secretary at Farage Andrews Law Practice, stated that the delay was neither deliberate nor in willful disregard of the court's orders but resulted from the plaintiffs' good-faith decision to await the second defendant's submissions.
It further argued that no material prejudice would be suffered by the defendants, who would still have an opportunity to respond where necessary.
After hearing the application, Justice Jaiteh granted the motion and ordered that the State and the second defendant be served with hearing notices.
The matter was subsequently adjourned to Friday for the adoption of the parties' final written briefs.
