By Cecilia E.L. Mendy
The High Court has overturned a Bundung Magistrates’ Court ruling and ordered the forfeiture of medicines seized from a man convicted of storing them in unlicensed premises.
The appellant, represented by Counsel A. Colley, challenged the lower court’s refusal to grant forfeiture under Section 52(1) of the Medicines and Related Products Act 2014. Counsel A.R. Gomez represented the respondent, Edrissa Kujabi.
The appeal followed a judgment delivered on 10 February 2026 by Magistrate R. Mendy, who had declined the prosecution’s application to forfeit the medicines after the respondent pleaded guilty.
The appellant argued that the magistrate erred in law by requiring proof that the medicines were unfit for consumption before ordering forfeiture, a condition not provided for under the Act. The appellant further contended that the refusal undermined public health objectives, as medicines linked to an admitted offence should not re-enter the public domain.
Delivering judgment, Justice Jaiteh held that the trial court misapplied the law and failed to properly exercise its discretion. He stated that once premises are unauthorised, the storage unlawful, and the accused convicted, public interest is presumed under the Act.
The court noted that the magistrate’s decision was contradictory, as a conviction for unlawful storage logically requires forfeiture of the seized medicines. Justice Jaiteh also found that the trial court relied on irrelevant considerations and applied the wrong legal test.
Addressing a preliminary objection by the respondent, the High Court ruled that the omission of numbered grounds of appeal was not fatal, as the issues were clearly presented and understood by both parties.
On the substantive issue, the court emphasised that Section 52(1) of the Act empowers courts to order forfeiture of medicines seized in connection with an offence upon conviction. The provision is direct and unambiguous.
Citing previous cases, the court reaffirmed that statutes must be interpreted according to their ordinary meaning, and courts should not introduce additional conditions absent from the law. Applying these principles, the High Court held that the statutory requirements for forfeiture had been met and that the trial magistrate erred by imposing extra conditions. The court noted that the Act is designed to protect public health, with forfeiture serving as a preventive measure against the unlawful circulation of medicines.
The appeal was allowed, the Magistrates’ Court decision set aside, and all seized medicines ordered forfeited to the State for handling by the relevant regulatory authorities in line with public health laws.
