15.03.2015 Views

Preface

Preface

Preface

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

120<br />

that she was not given the opportunity by the lower court to state her own side of<br />

the story and that the fire brigade approach adopted by the lower court in deciding<br />

the case, (i.e. the conduct of the case within twenty minutes), raises suspicion. On<br />

ground 2, she submitted that the lower court neither asked her about the number of<br />

children she had with the appellant talk less of taking that into consideration in its<br />

judgment nor did the court take cognizance of the fact that they had a pending<br />

matter before the Children’s Court on the issue of maintenance of their children.<br />

She also argued that the lower court did not equally take into account the pendency<br />

of a criminal case between her and the appellant at the Magistrate Court Kanifing.<br />

The appellant, on ground 3 argued that the lower court failed to consider the fact<br />

that she had been assaulted by her co-wife whilst she was 4 months old pregnant.<br />

On the last ground i.e. ground 4, the appellant was asked to clarify on<br />

whether it was the lower court that dissolved the marriage between her and the<br />

appellant as the ground connotes. The appellant, as well as the respondent in his<br />

reply, informed the Panel that the marriage between her and the respondent was<br />

dissolved by the respondent long before they appeared before the lower court.<br />

According to them the divorce took place on 27/4/2010 but they appeared before<br />

the lower court on 29/12/2010. Concluding her argument on that ground, the<br />

appellant maintained that her complaint is limited to her wrongful ejectment and<br />

forcing her door open by the lower court. She consequently prayed the court to set<br />

aside the judgment of the lower court on that ground and to order that she should<br />

be taken back into possession to enable her to stay with her children who are five<br />

in number. She also submitted that she was forced, as a result of the wrongful<br />

ejectment, to move to her parent’s house without her children even though the<br />

children joined her the following day from where they go to the respondent’s house<br />

occasionally.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!