Preface

119
1. That the said judgment is not equitable as it only took the Cadi 20 minutes to
decide the case, without giving the appellant the chance to explain her side
of the case,
2. That the Cadi failed to consider that the appellant have five children with the
respondent,
3. That the Cadi did not listen to the fact that the appellant had been assaulted
by her co-wife whilst she was 4 months pregnant,
4. That the Cadi wavering in dissolving the marriage and made an order
ejecting the appellant from the matrimonial home.
The appellant prayed the court to set aside the judgment of the trial court and
the divorce by the respondent. She also prayed the court for an order giving her
access to her children.
The fact of this case is that the appellant and the respondent were husband
and wife prior to 27/4/2010. After the divorce and the appellant’s iddah, the
respondent did all he could to prevail on the appellant to amicably vacate his house
at Bakau but all his efforts were treated with contempt by the appellant. It’s against
this background that the respondent then as plaintiff instituted Case No. 17/2010
against the appellant then as defendant before the lower court for an order directing
the appellant to vacate the house since the marital tie between them had been
extinguished. After the hearing on 29/12/2010, the lower court ordered the
respondent to vacate the house in question forthwith failing which, the lower court
thereafter on or about 14/2/2011 ejected her there from. It’s against this ejectment
that the defendant as appellant appealed to this panel.
The appeal came up for hearing on 22/3/2011. The appellant argued the
appeal based on the grounds of appeal filed. On ground 1, the appellant submitted