IN THE GAMBIA COURT OF APPEAL

More documents

Recommendations

Info

pages 1481-1482, it states that when something is wrong it can also mean that it is not correct or is a mistake. It states that to go wrong is to make a mistake. A ground of appeal that alleges that a judgment is wrong or erroneous in fact and in law without stating the particulars of error is clearly vague and unarguable and must be struck out. See the decision of this court in Edward Graham V Lucy Mensah (unreported judgment in Civil Appeal No.36/99 of 26 th January 2004) and Haro Co Ltd V Ousman Jallow (unreported judgment in Civil Appeal No.3/2003 of 1 st June 2006), which held that grounds of appeal exactly the same as the one here violate Rule 12 (2) GCA Rules and were incompetent for not stating the particulars of error”. Even though in the case of Faama Saine (supra) the 1 st ground of Appeal which elicited the foregoing remark of this court, had no particulars at all, it is my view that the decision of the court therein should apply to the Appeal instant. I say this because, as I have already held in this judgment, though the Appellant appended particulars to ground 5, those particulars cannot however qualify as proper particulars of any wrong, if any complained about in ground 5 itself. Therefore, I construe that ground of appeal as not having any particulars at all. The requirement of particularization embodied in Rule 12 (2) is to ensure adequate notice of matters in controversy, so that the Respondent is not disabled by vague and general statements. Ground 5 of the grounds of appeal is the epitome of vagueness, and I agree entirely with Ms Drameh, that it does not qualify as a ground of appeal. Ground 5 of the grounds of appeal is therefore incompetent and is hereby accordingly struck out. Issue two emanating from ground 5 and all arguments proffered in furtherance thereof are also accordingly struck out. 24
ISSUE THREE Whether the Appellants case at the Lower Court could have succeeded without the two written agreements which had been rejected. By the tenor of their argument in this appeal the Appellants are alleging that the Learned Trial Judge failed to evaluate the evidence placed before her at the trial court. It is by reason of this fact that the Appellants are inviting this court to go down stairs to the trial court, re-evaluate the evidence tendered there, set aside the findings not supported by evidence, substituting same with findings which ought properly to have been made having regards to the evidence. It is trite learning, that an appellate court usually will not interfere with the findings of fact made by a trial court after a proper evaluate of the evidence, unless there was no proper evaluation of the evidence led by both sides on the point. It is the duty of the trial court to review and evaluate all relevant and material evidence, before it, before making any findings of facts. Where the trial court fails to make proper use of its opportunities to appraise the evidence given before it, this court can dismiss the findings of facts of the said Trial Court. In the case of Armanti Gambia Company Ltd V DHL International (Gambia) Ltd (2002-2008) 1 GR 194, the Supreme Court of the Gambia put the position thus. “As a general rule, an appellate court does not disturb findings of fact made by a trial court unless it can be demonstrated that the said findings of fact are perverse, or are not supported by the evidence on record, or absurd in that no reasonable tribunal applying itself to the same facts, could have reached the same findings.” See Singam Investment Company Gambia Ltd V Nasser H Farage (2002-2008) GR 68 Christiana Williams V Melville Williams (CA 37/2007). Similarly, in the case of Fashonu V Adekoya (1974) 1 ALL NLR (pt.1) 35 at 41, The Supreme Court of Nigeria postulated this principle of law in the following language: 25
Page 1 and 2: IN THE GAMBIA COURT OF APPEAL BANNA
Page 3 and 4: (5) The Learned Trial Judge was wro
Page 5 and 6: 2. Whether the fact that the Defend
Page 7 and 8: appealing against two decision of t
Page 9 and 10: 4) The Learned Judge was wrong in r
Page 11 and 12: I have myself carefully perused Gro
Page 13 and 14: Bank of The Gambia V Continent Bank
Page 15 and 16: Evidence Act of The Gambia is in pa
Page 17 and 18: wrongful admission or exclusion of
Page 19 and 20: Furthermore, I am in complete conso
Page 21 and 22: It was submitted for the Appellant
Page 23: intends or conveys. What actually i
Page 27 and 28: The true parties to the said agreem
Page 29 and 30: 1. The Plaintiff’s is a limited l
Page 31 and 32: 3. The Defendant denies that it mad
Page 33 and 34: By letter of the 3 rd February, 200
Page 35 and 36: 23. Save as hereinbefore expressly
Page 37 and 38: The Plaintiff’s further averred t
Page 39 and 40: In the said letter the Defendants s
Page 41 and 42: 8. Paragraph 8 of the Reply of Stat
Page 43 and 44: Now the Appellant case at the trial
Page 45 and 46: 4 th of November 1998 and the 3 rd
Page 47 and 48: the purpose of adding a term to the
Page 49 and 50: It is obvious that the foregoing le
Page 51 and 52: appellant. There is no doubt that i

IN THE GAMBIA COURT OF APPEAL

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?