IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE GAMBIA HOLDEN AT BANJUL

question that beg for an answer is whether there exist intention to
cause death or do grievous harm or knowledge that death or
grievous harm would result when the accuse struck the deceased
with his bangled hand by the neck? My answer is in the negative,
because in my view, the strike by the accused is intended to register
a protest of comparing him with his rival. This explained why he left
the deceased on the ground to sit at the palour. The follow-up
question is when the accused returned from the parlour to wrap up
the mouth and nose of the deceased, was that in furtherance of the
earlier strike on the deceased! If it were, malice aforethought would
have been established. The answer is in the negative as the covering
of the mouth and nose is in the view of the accused to arrest the
noise. It is a smack of naiveness by the accused without malice
undertone. The Prosecution referred me to the case GARBA V THE
STATE Supra and urged me to pressure in favour of the Prosecution.
Am afraid I will not because of the factual difference. The murder
weapon used in GARBA V THE STATE and the way and manner it was
used coupled witt the age of the accused leaves the Court with no
other presumption than he intended the natural cause of his act.
Finally I hold that this issue is not established as I resolve it in favour
of the accused.
ISSUE 4