IN THE GAMBIA COURT OF APPEAL

More documents

Recommendations

Info

) The contracts for Banna Beach Hotel were not committed contracts. No payment needed to be made by the Defendant under the terms of the said contracts unless and until the rooms were actually occupied and the requisite seven day notice called for under the contracts had been given. Although irrelevant is this suit, the Defendant admits that in accordance with normal business practice, the Banna Beach Hotel was advertised in its Brochures several months prior to the start of the season in order to be able to sell the holidays. 11. Paragraph 11, 12 and 13 of the Reply to statement of Defense are denied. 12. The Defendant denies paragraph 14 of the Reply to Statement of Defense authorizing or wiring the letter referred to therein. If which is denied, the said letter was written, it was written without the writer having all the facts relevant to this matter, and/or was written without authority and/or is irrelevant to this suit. 13. The Defendant was under the terms of the contracts, required to provide a rooming list seven days before arrival of its guests, and then Banna Beach Hotel was entitled to invoice for the rooms actually occupied. The Defendant not having occupied any room during the period covered by this suit, the Defendant does not owe either Banna Beach Hotel or the Plaintiff the sum of ₤424.140.00 or any sums at all. 42
Now the Appellant case at the trial court clearly decipherable from the pleadings and the evidence of PWI, Sheriff Marong the Managing Director of the Appellant Hotel, as well as PW2, Mr. Buba Drameh who worked with the Appellant Hotel as a Front Office Manager, is that the parties entered into two agreements, by the terms of which the Appellants agreed to provide accommodation for the Defendants tourists in the Banna Beach Hotel owned by the Plaintiff for the period covering November 1999 to April 2000 and November 2000 to April 2001. That the Respondents approached the Appellants to block 50 rooms in their Hotel for their guests from the UK for the first period that is 1999/2000 period. The Respondent also requested that 20 rooms be blocked for their guests for the 2 nd period, that is the 2000/2001, period that the Respondent paid the Appellants ₤30,000 for the 1 st period. That the Appellants duly blocked the rooms, but that the Respondents only brought guests to be accommodated in the Hotel for only part of the 1 st period. That the Appellants accommodated the guests brought by the Respondents in November and December 1999. That after January 2000, the Appellants received no more guests from the Respondents. On the 3 rd of February 2000, the Appellants received a letter from the respondents, Exhibit D, terminating the contract between the parties, and the Appellants replied via Exhibit E, accepting the repudiation of the contract. That the Appellants could not sell the rooms blocked for the Respondents because agreements are signed with tour operators one year ahead of time. The 50 rooms they blocked could take about 135 guests and the room rate was ₤11 per person. That as a result of the termination of the contract by the Respondent, the Appellant incurred huge revenue losses. The Appellant lost ₤176,000 representing room sales, food and other outlets. The Appellant further contended that they met the safety requirements of the Respondents therefore the termination of the contract was not justified. That as a result of the Respondent’s action the Appellant could not service a Bank loan and had to sell the Hotel. Appellants particularized the claim of special damages in paragraph 10 of the statement of claim. 43
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 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: 8. Paragraph 8 of the Reply of Stat
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?