IN THE GAMBIA COURT OF APPEAL

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