IN THE GAMBIA COURT OF APPEAL

More documents

Recommendations

Info

“……………….it does not preclude a party from lodging an interlocutory appeal where the issues raised by the rejection of his evidence are so crucial and critical to his case. In such a case it is prudent for him to exercise the right of appeal”. I also say that it was prudent for the Appellant herein to timeously exercise his constitutional right of appeal, pursuant to S.130 of the Constitution of the Republic 1997, against the decision of Itam J of the 18 th December 2002, in view of the fact that the evidence rejected, rejects A B and C, formed a crucial part of his case at the trial nisi prius. To wait until 5 years after, when the right of appeal has completely extinguished, to raise these issues in the way and manner he seeks to do in this appeal, in my view tantamount to “shutting the stable after the animal had bolted away”. The Appellants are therefore precluded from raising the issues in grounds 1 to 4 of the grounds of appeal, in the way and manner they seek to do in this appeal, in the absence of a competent appeal against the Ruling of 18 th December 2002. This is because the decision of Okoi Itam J contained in the said Ruling is valid and subsisting and binding upon the parties thereto including the appellant. It must be obeyed and respected by all, including this court. This is premised on the fact that no court has the powers to assume that a subsisting order or judgment of another court of competent jurisdiction, can be ignored because the former, whether it is a superior court in the judicial hierarchy, presumes the order, as made or the judgment as given by the latter, to be manifestly invalid, without a pronouncement to that effect by a competent appellate or reviewing court. See First International Bank Ltd V Gambia Shipping Agency (supra) Edward Graham V Lucy Mensah (supra) Haro Co Ltd & ors V Ousman Jallow (supra) Udom V Micheletti & Sons Ltd (1997) 7 SCNJ 44. 18
Furthermore, I am in complete consonance with Ms. Drameh in Respondents brief, that grounds 1 to 4 of the grounds of appeal, cannot even in the wildest of imaginations qualify as new issues in this appeal. I say this because quite apart from the fact that these issues have been decided in the Ruling of 18 th December 2002, which remains valid, subsisting and binding upon the parties, to treat them as new issues if the occasion demands (which is not the position in this appeal,) requires the leave of this court. There is no evidence to show that the requisite leave was sought and obtained before these issues were raised and argued. Therefore even in that extreme of scenarios, grounds 1 to 4 of the grounds of Appeal remain incompetent and unarguable. See Haro Company Ltd V Ousman Jallow (supra) First International Bank V Gambia Shipping Agency CA No 24/2002) Amadou Jallow V Bakary Drammeh & ors (unreported decision of the Gambia Court of Appeal in CA 35/2007 delivered on Thursday, 10 th of June, 2010. On these premises grounds 1 to 4 of the grounds of appeal, Issue One predicated thereon and all argument proffered in furtherance thereof by the Appellant, are hereby struck out. I have already held in this judgment that the Notice of Appeal herein is obviously challenging two decisions of the High Court, to wit the Ruling of Okoi Itam J delivered on the 18 th of December 2002, and the judgment of Dordzie J rendered on the 17 th of November, 2007. I agree with Ms Drameh in paragraph 5 of the appellant’s brief, that this is not a valid way of appealing against two decisions of the High Court. I am of the firm view that each decision should be the subject of a separate Appeal. It matters not that the decisions were made in the same suit. What the Appellant did was to consolidate two appeals without the leave of court. Such consolidation ought to have been done with the leave of court See Mohamadou Sissoho V Inspector General of 19
Page 1 and 2: IN THE GAMBIA COURT OF APPEAL BANNA
Page 3 and 4: (5) The Learned Trial Judge was wro
Page 5 and 6: 2. Whether the fact that the Defend
Page 7 and 8: appealing against two decision of t
Page 9 and 10: 4) The Learned Judge was wrong in r
Page 11 and 12: I have myself carefully perused Gro
Page 13 and 14: Bank of The Gambia V Continent Bank
Page 15 and 16: Evidence Act of The Gambia is in pa
Page 17: wrongful admission or exclusion of
Page 21 and 22: It was submitted for the Appellant
Page 23 and 24: intends or conveys. What actually i
Page 25 and 26: ISSUE THREE Whether the Appellants
Page 27 and 28: The true parties to the said agreem
Page 29 and 30: 1. The Plaintiff’s is a limited l
Page 31 and 32: 3. The Defendant denies that it mad
Page 33 and 34: By letter of the 3 rd February, 200
Page 35 and 36: 23. Save as hereinbefore expressly
Page 37 and 38: The Plaintiff’s further averred t
Page 39 and 40: In the said letter the Defendants s
Page 41 and 42: 8. Paragraph 8 of the Reply of Stat
Page 43 and 44: Now the Appellant case at the trial
Page 45 and 46: 4 th of November 1998 and the 3 rd
Page 47 and 48: the purpose of adding a term to the
Page 49 and 50: It is obvious that the foregoing le
Page 51 and 52: appellant. There is no doubt that i

IN THE GAMBIA COURT OF APPEAL

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?