IN THE GAMBIA COURT OF APPEAL

More documents

Recommendations

Info

appeal, from which Issue Two emerged. I count it expedient therefore to examine ground 5 of the grounds of appeal to ascertain whether there is any substance or efficacy, in the Respondent’s complaints, before taking any further steps in this matter. Appellant alleges the following in ground 5. “(5) The Learned trial Judge was wrong when she held that it cannot be said that the facts enumerated in paragraph 22 (2.2) of the Plaintiff’s address are admitted and are not in issue because the Defendant vehemently denied that it signed any agreement with the Plaintiff. (i) Particulars of Error Paragraph 2.2 of the Plaintiff Address lists 10 material facts which the Plaintiff said were not in issue. (ii) The Learned Trial Judge’s finding merely avoided a determination of the 10 issues raised. I have hereinbefore stated in this judgment that the grounds of Appeal serve as a notice of the issues in controversy to the Respondent. This purpose is to fulfill the fair hearing requirement which is expressed in the maxim “audi alteram partem.” It also defines the jurisdiction of the court. That is why strict compliance with the principles that attend appeals, sanctioned by the rules of court is of utmost expediency. I have hereinbefore identified Rule 12 (1) to (6) of the rules of this court, as the “soul and foundation” of any proper, grounds of appeal. That is why I am inclined to agree with Ms Drameh in her grouse against ground 5 of the grounds of this appeal. I say this because, I am completely at pains to comprehend what this ground of appeal, purports or 22
intends or conveys. What actually is this ground of appeal challenging? How was the Learned Trial Judge wrong? Did he commit any error or misdirection in law? This ground of appeal, is too nebulous. It is too vague and general in terms. It discloses no reasonable ground of appeal and clearly offends Rule 12 (3) of the GCA rules. The predicament of this ground of appeal is in my views compounded by the particulars appended thereto. These particulars are peculiar in that they cannot honestly qualify as particulars of the error, if any, complained about in the ground of appeal itself. These particulars have not shown how the Learned Trial Judge erred against or wronged the law, as the case may be. The particular merely allude to the 10 items enumerated in paragraph 2.2 of the Appellants brief at the trial court, and complains that the trial judge avoided determining these facts by side stepping them. With all due respects, these allusions do not amount to particulars of the wrong, if any, alluded to in ground 5 itself. As this court said in the case of Momodou D. Jallow & ors V Faama Saine CA 49/2006 (unreported decision of the Court of Appeal rendered on Monday 28 th of July, 2008) per Agim PCA (as he then was). “…………………….It is beyond dispute that the phrase “wrong in fact and in law” in the context used therein, mean the same thing as “error” infact and in law. A wrong judgment or decision is an erroneous judgment or decision. A wrong or erroneous judgment means one rendered contrary to law or fact or upon a mistaken view of law or fact or upon a mistaken conception or application of the law or incorrect belief as to the existence or effect of matters of fact. Grammatically, ordinarily and literally the word “wrong” can also mean error or erroneous and in the context it is used in the 1 st ground of appeal, it means that the Trial court erred in fact and in law. The new Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary, at page 412, states the meaning of the word “erroneous” as “wrong or false impression” and the word “error” as “mistake or fault”. It also defines the phrase, “error of judgment” as a “wrong decision.” At 23
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 and 18: wrongful admission or exclusion of
Page 19 and 20: Furthermore, I am in complete conso
Page 21: It was submitted for the Appellant
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?