IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE GAMBIA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE GAMBIA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE GAMBIA
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
“Sworn at Banjul<br />
This 30 th day of November, 2011”;<br />
whereas, Counsel submits, it should state thus:<br />
“Sworn to at Banjul<br />
By the within-named Sulayman B. Sanyang”<br />
Mr. Sanyang did not respond to Mr. Touray’s objection.<br />
I have looked at Mr. Touray’s objection and would agree with him that the jurat as<br />
stated is defective in form. But I also noticed that the affidavit was sworn before a<br />
Commissioner for Oaths who signed it and affixed his stamp which carries the name of<br />
the Notary Public and Commissioner for Oaths as ABDOU CONTEH.<br />
Section 87 of the Evidence Act provides that:<br />
“The Court may permit an affidavit to be used, notwithstanding if it is<br />
defective in form according to these rules, if the court is satisfied that it has<br />
been sworn before a person duly authorized”<br />
The deponent of the said affidavit is Sulayman B. Sanyang; he signed as Deponent. I do<br />
not think that failure to state in the jurat the phrase “by the within-named Sulayman B.<br />
Sanyang” renders the affidavit incompetent. I quite agree that the omitted phrase is<br />
necessary. Its omission is a defect, but does not amount to incompetence. By virtue of<br />
S. 87, of the Evidence act, I will allow the use of the said affidavit as I am satisfied that it<br />
was sworn before an authorized person. In that regard, Respondents issue 3 is<br />
answered in the affirmative.<br />
I will take Applicant’s issue 2; “Whether the applicant is entitled to an amendment of<br />
her Notice of Appeal”. I will consider this issue along with Respondent’s issues 2 and 4<br />
which touch on the subject of Amendment of Notice of appeal.<br />
On page 3 of his Written Brief, Applicant’s Counsel, rightly in my view, submitted that<br />
this court has the jurisdiction to relist a suit/appeal which has earlier been struck out.<br />
Counsel referred to Order 24 Rule 1 of the Rules of the High Court on amendments and<br />
Order 34 Rule 6 on Re-listing matters struck out. Although Mr. Touray did not respond<br />
to these, I must point out that the two Rules referred to by the Applicant cannot apply<br />
to the instant application. Those Rules govern proceedings in a matter before the High<br />
3