IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE GAMBIA HELD AT BANJUL ON THE ...

Therefore in a claim for damages resulting from a tort, so long as the plaintiff is ableto show that some form of harm resulted there from, I consider that he is entitled todamages. Even though it is trite that apart from damages resulting from breach noother form of damages can be contemplated see ACME Builders Ltd v KadunaState Water Board & Anor (supra), Devlin C.J however observed in Biggin vPermanite (1951) 1 KB 422 at 438 that in the award of damages “whereprecise evidence is obtainable the court naturally expects to have it done;where it is not the court must do the best it can”. Therefore from the facts ofthis case and the ample evidence before this court I consider that the plaintiff isentitled to general damages for both claims 1 and 2 in the amount of D10,000,000(Ten Million Dalasis) each. D50,000,000 in my view would be too excessive.The third claim being damages in the sum of D2,576,091 is claimed in pursuant tothe undertaking made by the defendant herein on the 8 th January 2010 and filed onthe 11 th January 2010 wherein the defendant undertook to pay damages arising outof the interim orders granted by the court in event that it is found that the orderssought ought not to have been granted. See exhibit AA7. By exhibit AA11 the courtheld that the appointment of a receiver at that stage of proceedings (following itsorder made exp) was oppressive, the order was as result revoked.The plaintiff claims that as a result of the order of the 8 th January 2010 he sufferedcrippling effects to his business. In support of his claims he contracted an auditexercise to compute the loss of earnings experienced as a result of the order of the8 th January 2010. A report was subsequently prepared, tendered and marked AA13herein. The report concluded that the amount of D2,576,091 amounted to the lossof earnings for the period between 8 th January 2010 and 31 st January 2010 and saidamount represented the true and fair damages to be awarded as compensation tothe plaintiff (see page 5 of exhibit AA13). In the absence of evidence to the contraryand in light of exhibit AA7 the defendant’s own undertaking, this court is of the viewthat the plaintiff is entitled to his claim under this head and I so hold.Therefore based on the foregoing the following orders are hereby made;1. The sum of D10,000,000 (Ten Million Dalasis) in general damages ishereby awarded against the defendant for his abuse of the process of thecourt with regard to Civil Suit HC/016/10/CO/002/BO in favour of theplaintiff;2. The sum of D10,000,000 (Ten Million Dalasis) in general damages ishereby awarded against the defendant for his abuse of the process of thecourt with regard to Civil Suit Number HC/154/10/MF/032/A2 in favour ofthe plaintiff8

3. Damages in the sum of D2,576,091 (Two Million, Five Hundred andSeventy-Six Thousand, Ninety One Dalasis) pursuant to the defendant’sundertaking in damages dated the 8 th day of January 2010 and filed onthe 11 th day of January 2010 in civil suit number HC/016/CO/002/BO ishereby ordered against the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.4. Given that this suit was not defended, costs is summarily assessed atD10,000 (Ten Thousand Dalasis).Hon Justice Mama Fatima SinghatehJudge10/1/ 2012ISSUED AT BANJUL UNDER THE SEAL OF THE COURT AND THE HAND OFPRESIDING JUDGE THIS DAY 10 th JANUARY 2012.REGISTRAR9