IN THE GAMBIA COURT OF APPEAL

More documents

Recommendations

Info

content of the written agreements, which had previously been rejected, and upon which the entire action was based at the trial nisi prius. Aggrieved by the foregoing decision of the trial court, the Appellant commenced this Appeal vide Notice of Appeal filed on the 13 th of February, 2008, challenging same upon the following grounds: (1) The Learned Judge erred in law when he refused to admit into evidence a Photostat copy of a standard form of contract which clearly emanated from the Respondents. (2) The Learned Judge erred in law in failing to admit into evidence three contract documents authorized by the Respondents on the erroneous ground that the Appellant has no right to refuse to comply with a Notice to Produce which itself was, in any event, defective and not in compliance with the requirements of the Rules governing Notice to Produce Documents. (3) The Learned Judge wrongly exercised his discretion to reject the 3 standard forms of contract by basing his decision on legal technicality at the expense of substantial justice, well knowing from the pleadings that the said documents formed the substratum of the Appellants case. (4) The Learned Judge was wrong in rejecting the tendered contracts when the justice of the case demanded a more equitable approach such as ordering the Appellant to produce and in the meantime the proceedings stayed until compliance. 2
(5) The Learned Trial Judge was wrong when she held that it cannot be said that the facts numerated in paragraph 22 (2.2) of the Plaintiff’s address are admitted and 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’s Address lists 10 material facts which the Plaintiff said were not in issue. (ii) The Learned Trial Judge’s finding merely avoided a determination on the 10 issues raised. (6) The Learned Trial Judge was wrong when she held that “the true parties to the said agreements can only be determined from the contents of the documents.” (i) Particulars of Error The existence of the contracts and that the Banna Beach Hotel was made available to the Defendant was not denied by the Deponent. (ii) That Sheriff Marong signed the contracts was also not denied by the Plaintiff. (iii) What was in issue was the capacity in which Sheriff Marong acted when he signed. (iv) The Plaintiff had argued that this could be decided without the contracts and cited authorities to that effect. The Learned Trial Judge never considered this issue. 3
Page 1: IN THE GAMBIA COURT OF APPEAL BANNA
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 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?