IN THE GAMBIA COURT OF APPEAL

More documents

Recommendations

Info

which had been rejected.” It is my views that this views that this issue encapsulates issues three, four and five formulated in the Appellants brief. I will this determine this Appeal based on the following issues. 1) Whether the Learned Trial Judge properly exercised his discretion in refusing the three agreements (Rejects A, B and C). 2) Whether the fact that the Defendant “vehemently denied that it entered into the agreements with the Plaintiff” precluded the court from examining the issues set out in paragraph 2.3 as having been admitted by the Defendant and therefore needed no proof. 3) Whether the Appellants case at the Lower Court could have succeeded without the two written agreements which had been rejected”. ISSUE ONE Whether the Learned Trial Judge properly exercised his discretion in rejecting the three agreements (Reject A, B and C). This issue is clearly distilled from Grounds 1 to 4 of the grounds of appeal. Appellants Counsel submitted in paragraph 6.2 of the Appellants brief, that if Issue One is found in favour of the Appellants, then the need to determine Issues 2 to 4 will be obviated. That remains to be seen. I say so because this is a vexed issue in this Appeal. It elicited considerable fight from the Respondent. The Respondents challenge both the Notice of Appeal and Grounds 1 to 4 of the grounds of Appeal as incompetent. They contend in paragraph 5 of the Respondents brief, that “the Notice of Appeal strangely purports to be against the decision of the High Court contained in the judgment of the Hon. Justice A.M. Dordzie, date the 17 th day of November, 2007, based on the Ruling of Okoi Itam dated the 18 th December, 2002 and this cannot be a valid way of 6
appealing against two decision of the High Court. This is so, particularly having regard to the fact that the Learned Trial Judge Dordzie J. did not interfere with, comment on or make any decision regarding the propriety or otherwise of rejecting the documents that were sought to be tendered before Itam J and rejected by him in 2002.” Similarly the Respondents question the competence of Grounds 1 to 4 of the grounds of this appeal, contending that this court lacks the jurisdiction in this appeal, to determine any issues arising from the Ruling of Okoi Itam J, rendered on the 18 th day of December 2002. They submit that the said ruling not having been appealed against within time, and not having been an issue that was determined in the impugned judgment, cannot therefore be a matter for determination in this appeal. Respondents relied on Section 130 of the Constitution of the Republic of the Gambia 1997, Rule 14 of the Gambia Court of Appeal rules, and a host of cases both within and without this jurisdiction, notable amongst which are, First International Bank V Gambia Shipping Agency Civil Appeal No.24/2002, Ruling delivered on 21 st June, 2007, Haro Company Limited & Ors V Ousman Jallow (2002-2008) GLR Vol.1 128, Saraki V Kotoye (1992) 9 NWLR (Part.264) 162, Oshodi V Eyifummi (2002) 13 NWLR (Part.684) 298, 313, Emco-Nasa Computers Limited V British Airways and Another (2002) 13 NWLR (Part.684) 203, 204,208, Dagaci of Ddre V Dagaci of Ebwa (2001) 7 NWLR (Part.712) 257-516, Simetequip Limited Vs Omega Bank (2001) 16 NWLR (Part.739) Page 325-345, Dantata & Sawoe Const. V Hassan (2001) 5 NWLR (Part.705) 129 as well as Spencer Bower and Turner on the Doctrine of RES JUDICATA 2 nd Edition Page 15 paragraph 16. Now, I have said it in this judgment, that the competence of the Notice of Appeal, as well as Grounds 1-4 of the grounds of appeal, are under attack by the Respondents. The jurisdiction of this court to entertain and determine the 7
Page 1 and 2: IN THE GAMBIA COURT OF APPEAL BANNA
Page 3 and 4: (5) The Learned Trial Judge was wro
Page 5: 2. Whether the fact that the Defend
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?