IN THE GAMBIA COURT OF APPEAL

The true parties to the said agreements can only be determined from the
contents of the document. The position of the law as stated above is that the
oral evidence led by the Plaintiff and his witnesses, to prove who the parties are
to the agreement is not admissible. Section 79 of the Evidence Act further
supports the law on this. S.79 of the Evidence Act says “All facts except the
contents of documents may be proved by oral evidence”.
It is unfortunate that the agreements were rejected in evidence. Without the
written agreements in evidence this court has no evidence before it to help it
determine the issues raised from the pleadings. To be able to determine
whether there had been a breach of the terms of the agreements, there must be
evidence as to what the terms are. Negotiations or any transactions the
Plaintiff’s evidence referred to cannot be admissible evidence in proof of the
contents of the agreements.
Damages would be awarded if there is proof that there had been a breach of the
terms of the agreements. In the absence of proof of breach the claim in
damages must fail (see page 414 paragraphs 3,4,5 & 6.)
“The rejection of the written agreements in evidence had dealt the Plaintiff’s
claim a deadly legal blow. The oral evidence adduced by the Plaintiff I find is not
admissible in proof of the contents of the written agreements this action is based
on. The Plaintiff I find has failed to place any evidence before this court in proof
of its claims. The Plaintiff’s action are hereby dismissed as not proved” (see
page 415 paragraph 1).
The Poser here is, are the findings of fact of the Learned Trial Judge sustainable
in the face of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence led at the trial nisi
prius? I ask this question because, it is trite law that all through the journey of
a case in court, from the trial stage until, all appeal channels are exhausted,
27