IN THE GAMBIA COURT OF APPEAL
IN THE GAMBIA COURT OF APPEAL
IN THE GAMBIA COURT OF APPEAL
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
pages 1481-1482, it states that when something is wrong it can also mean that it<br />
is not correct or is a mistake. It states that to go wrong is to make a mistake.<br />
A ground of appeal that alleges that a judgment is wrong or erroneous in fact<br />
and in law without stating the particulars of error is clearly vague and<br />
unarguable and must be struck out. See the decision of this court in Edward<br />
Graham V Lucy Mensah (unreported judgment in Civil Appeal No.36/99 of<br />
26 th January 2004) and Haro Co Ltd V Ousman Jallow (unreported<br />
judgment in Civil Appeal No.3/2003 of 1 st June 2006), which held that<br />
grounds of appeal exactly the same as the one here violate Rule 12 (2) GCA<br />
Rules and were incompetent for not stating the particulars of error”.<br />
Even though in the case of Faama Saine (supra) the 1 st ground of Appeal which<br />
elicited the foregoing remark of this court, had no particulars at all, it is my view<br />
that the decision of the court therein should apply to the Appeal instant. I say<br />
this because, as I have already held in this judgment, though the Appellant<br />
appended particulars to ground 5, those particulars cannot however qualify as<br />
proper particulars of any wrong, if any complained about in ground 5 itself.<br />
Therefore, I construe that ground of appeal as not having any particulars at all.<br />
The requirement of particularization embodied in Rule 12 (2) is to ensure<br />
adequate notice of matters in controversy, so that the Respondent is not<br />
disabled by vague and general statements. Ground 5 of the grounds of appeal is<br />
the epitome of vagueness, and I agree entirely with Ms Drameh, that it does<br />
not qualify as a ground of appeal. Ground 5 of the grounds of appeal is therefore<br />
incompetent and is hereby accordingly struck out. Issue two emanating from<br />
ground 5 and all arguments proffered in furtherance thereof are also accordingly<br />
struck out.<br />
24