(gambia) ltd

In this instant case, the parties are the same and the subject matter is thesame. So, it is clear that it would amount to an abuse of the process of thecourt if prayer 1 which is to relist the motion struck out is granted.Counsel for the Appellant/Applicant Mrs. A.N Bensouda contended that theblatant act of the Judgment Creditor/Respondent which is in total contemptof the court proceeding is enough not to hear the Respondent, she citedthe case of GAMBIA UTILITIES CORPORATION Vs BASIRU JAWARACA4/89. Counsel further contended that the Judgment creditor haveadvertised the property for sale while the application is pending and theJudgment Creditor have also evicted the Appellant/Application from thepremises and take over possession while the application for stay is stillpending and these acts of the Judgment Creditor is enough to grant stay ofexecution in favour of the Appellant/Applicant Counsel cited the cases ofCHRISTIAN WILLIAMS Vs MELVIN WILLIAMS CA 34/07, OUSMANTASBASI Vs ABDUL RAMAN JALLOW CA 4/07 and FALOU JATTA VsADAMA JANNEH CA 25/07.Counsel for the Respondent however contended that the Respondentnever acted in disobedience of the Court orders as alleged by theAppellant/Applicant counsel.From the argument of Counsel for the Appellant/Applicant, it seems tobased all her argument on stay of execution on the disobedience of theorder of the court by the Respondent and nothing more. The Respondentcounsel on his part denied that the Respondent acted in disobedience ofthe order of the court. In order to resolve this issue let me look at theaffidavits filed by the Appellant/Applicant and the Respondent. Looking atthe affidavits deposed to by SAIHOU SINGHATEH on the 14 th April 2011,the further affidavit deposed to by HANNA SYLLA on the 25 th June 2011and the further affidavit deposed by SAIHOU SINGHATEH on the 27 th June17