(gambia) ltd

She further submitted that the properties worth over D50 million (fifty milliondalasis) and the judgment itself in this suit with all the interest is below D40million (forty million dalasis). Counsel further urge the court to order thatthe judgment creditor restore the judgment debtor to the premises to abideany further order of this court in relation to execution of the judgment of theHigh Court. She referred to the case of ATLANTIC HOTEL LTD VsJANKEH TAAL Civil Appeal 39/94; also ORDER 6 RULE 2 OF G.C.A.Counsel further submitted that the affidavit of the Respondent is a blatantadmission that the judgment creditor was going to sell the property on the22 nd June 2011 at 10.30 am in total disregard with what is happening in thiscourt. Counsel submitted that in regard to the further, further affidavit ofSAIHOU SINGHATEH that the judgment debtor were evicted from thepremises which has not been denied is an act of impunity and an abuse ofprocess. Counsel also submitted that the application before the High Courthas no relevance with the application that is pending before this court.Counsel also submitted that the Respondent has also exhibited a letterfrom the Sheriff as Exhibit “FJ1” but the letter was not exhibited. Shesubmitted that it was deliberate, she further submitted that the ruling of theHigh Court was also not exhibited, she therefore urge the Court to ignorethe affidavit because it is not an affidavit in opposition and it only prejudicethe outcome of this matter.Mr. C.E Mene Counsel for the Respondent responded by saying that themotion before the court is a simple straight forward motion. He submittedthat the only prayer on the motion the court can deal with is prayer I,because the court cannot deal with prayer 2 without granting prayer I. Hesubmitted that prayer 1 is a prayer seeking an order for the relistment of amotion that was struck out. He also submitted that what is before the courtis a motion seeking to relist a motion. Counsel submitted that this isimproper in law; and in term of practice, it is an anomaly. He submitted thatwhat the Applicant would have done is to re file a fresh motion and not tofile a motion to re list a motion. Counsel cited S. 130(4) of the 1997Constitution. Counsel also submitted that the power to relist a cause isprovided by order 34 Rule 6 of the High Court Rules Schedule 2. Cap 6:02.4