Zainab Sheriff’s Appeal to Proceed Subject to Compliance with Court Conditions
By: Patrick Sallia
High Court Judge Justice Mark Ngegba has ruled that the hearing of entertainer Zainab Sheriff’s appeal will proceed on Thursday, 2 July 2026, subject to compliance with specific conditions set by the court.
In a ruling delivered on Thursday, 18 June 2026, Justice Ngegba directed that the Master and Registrar facilitate the provision of certified copies of the court records, including the judgment delivered by the Magistrate on 14 April 2026, to both the court and the parties involved no later than Friday, 26 June 2026.
The judge further ordered that upon receipt of the certified records and judgment, the Appellant and Respondent must file their Appeal and Response respectively in accordance with the prescribed forms contained in the Appendix to the Rules.
Justice Ngegba also ruled that the appeal will be determined on the basis of the evidence already taken before the Magistrate’s Court, with no witnesses to be called or examined. Additionally, he dispensed with the requirement for the Appellant to be present on the hearing date.
The ruling came one week after State Counsel Ibrahim Tholley raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the Notice of Appeal dated 9 June 2026 was “defective and incompetent” and failed to comply with Rule 3(1) of the Appeals from Magistrates’ Courts Rules, 1969.
According to Tholley, the rule requires every appeal to be initiated by a written notice signed by the appellant. Relying on the case of Dr. Sarah Bendu v. State, he contended that what had been filed was merely a “statement” and not a valid notice of appeal.
He further submitted that Rule 8(2) empowers the court to dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution where an appellant fails to comply with mandatory procedural requirements. Compliance, he argued, is “not optional.”
Counsel Wright, representing Sheriff, countered that the State’s application was based on “non-existing legislation” and maintained that the alleged defect was not fatal to the appeal.
Should the conditions imposed by Justice Ngegba be met, the court will proceed to consider the 19 substantive grounds of appeal advanced on behalf of Zainab Sheriff.
Among the grounds are allegations that the Magistrate erred by trying Sheriff summarily on a charge of incitement without her express consent, as required under Section 6 of the Courts Amendment Act, 1981, thereby rendering the proceedings a nullity.
The appeal further argues that no witness testified during the trial, no recipient of the message was identified, and that a private WhatsApp message forwarded to two contacts was improperly treated as public dissemination.
Another ground challenges the validity of the charge on the basis that it failed to specify which election was being referred to, rendering it “bad for uncertainty.”
The appeal also contends that the prosecution admitted it had only established a prima facie case and not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Additionally, Sheriff argues that the Magistrate refused to entertain a “no case submission,” thereby denying her constitutional right to a fair trial. The appeal further describes the four-year custodial sentence imposed on a first-time offender as “manifestly excessive,” noting that no violence, injury, or breach of the peace resulted from the alleged offence. Counsel Wright informed the court that Sheriff has already served approximately half of the sentence.
He therefore prayed the court to allow the appeal, set aside both the conviction and sentence, acquit and discharge Zainab Yeibu Sheriff, or alternatively grant her bail pending the determination of the appeal.
