IN THE GAMBIA COURT OF APPEAL

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Appeal is thus challenged. It is trite learning, that once the jurisdiction of a court to determine a matter is challenged, it behoves that court to suspend every other business of the day and settle the question of its jurisdiction, before taking any further steps in the matter. This is because, a determination of a matter over which a court lacks jurisdiction, cannot clothe that court with the jurisdiction which it does not have. Therefore, any decision emanating from such a matter, no matter how fanciful and aesthetic it be, will still amount to a nullity for that lack of jurisdiction. It is thus imperative that a court determines its jurisdiction once raised, in other not to engage in an exercise in futility. I will thus in honour of this trite principle of law, determine whether this court has the jurisdiction to entertain the Appeal against the decision of Itam J rendered on the 18 th of December 2002 and grounds 1 to 4 of the grounds of appeal upon which Issue One is predicated. I will like to commence this exercise from the tangent of Grounds 1 to 4 of the grounds of appeal, and to that end I find it convenient at this juncture to reproduce Grounds 1 to 4 of the grounds of appeal, for ease of clarity in this judgment. They state thus 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 8
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. It is a cardinal rule of appeal, that Grounds of Appeal must relate to matters decided in the impugned judgment. The Grounds of Appeal must isolate and accentuate for attack the basis of the reasoning of the decision challenged. It must be fixed and circumscribed within a particular issue in controversy, otherwise it cannot be regarded as related to the decision. It is incompetent when not fixed and circumscribed within a particular issue in controversy decided in the judgment. This is because an appeal presupposes the existence of some decision appealed against. In the absence of such a decision on a point, there cannot possibly be an appeal against what has not been decided against a party. See Haro Company Limited V Ousman Jallow (supra) Edward Graham V Lucy Mensah (2002-2008) GR1, Amadou Jallow V Bakary Drammeh. Saraki V Kotoye (supra) Babalola & ors V The State (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt.115) 246 at 294. Grounds 1 to 4 of the Grounds of Appeal do not emanate from the judgment of the 17 th of November 2007. I say this because these grounds of appeal are not fixed and circumscribed within any issues decided in that judgment. I have carefully perused these grounds of appeal and I find that they do not emanate from the impugned judgment of 17 th day of November, 2007 to be found on pages 409 to 415 of the record of Appeal*. 9
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: appealing against two decision of t
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?