Preface
Preface Preface
126 This obligation is however deemed extinguished when the iddah period is over. In the instant appeal, the divorce took place on 27/4/2010 when the last baby of the marriage Khajja Fatimata Kijera was conceived by the appellant. Appellant’s statement at page 2 of the record of the lower court line 9 “yes indeed he was my husband and then divorced me when I was pregnant” is quite explicit on this. The appellant being pregnant on the date she was divorced, her iddah in law was to last until she put to bed in line with the Quranic injunction which states: Meaning “for those who are pregnant, their period is until they deliver their burdens”. On delivery of Khajja Fatimata Kijera on 23 rd September 2010, this obligation is deemed, and in fact, extinguished provided the respondent has not exercised his right of revoking the divorce before that date if same is revocable. There is no evidence either from the record of proceedings of the lower court or from the submissions of the parties before this Panel to the effect that the divorce was revoked during the idaah. That obligation, having been extinguished as said, the appellant has no right to insist on staying in the respondent’s house against his wish. This is without prejudice to the appellant’s right to institute a separate action before any Cadi Court in the Gambia for the maintenance of her five children with the respondent. This issue is therefore resolved in favour of the respondent and the ground upon which it is based hereby fails. This brings us to the last issue i.e. whether the ejectment of the appellant by the lower court was wrong as per her argument. Issue 2 above has partially dealt
127 with this issue. Since the appellant, has been divorced by the respondent consequent upon which she observed and completed her prescribed iddah, the law has not recognized her continued stay in the respondent’s house. The marital tie which entitles her to that has been severed by the respondent through divorce. The appellant’s prayer that the court should bring her back into possession can therefore not be sustained since she does not have any recognizable and enforceable right in Sharia to entitle her to that relief. Despite the fact that she did not have any recognizable right in Sharia, the appellant willingly chose to clog the wheel of justice by disrespecting the order of the lower court and refusing to vacate the house in question from 29/12/2010 when the order was given, until 14/2/2011 when she was ejected from the house barely one and half months. This is despite the sum of D1,500.00 given to her by the respondent, as admitted by her, for that purpose. The appellant’s ejectment from the house of the respondent was therefore not wrongful since the appellant had no right in Sharia worthy of protection. This issue, as the previous one, is equally resolved in favour of the respondent. Based on the foregoing, the appeal fails and same is hereby dismissed. The decision of the lower court is hereby affirmed. The appellant was rightly ejected from the respondent’s house which is situate at Bakau, the Gambia. ………….……………………. (Singed): Justice Omar A. Secka …………………………………….. (Signed): Panelist Alh. Ousman Jah …………………………… (Signed): Justice A. S. Usman ..…….………………………….. (Signed): Panelist Alh. Masohna Kah
- Page 76 and 77: 76 she confirmed what the appellant
- Page 78 and 79: 78 On this note, we hereby declared
- Page 80 and 81: 80 JUDGMENT Written & delivered by
- Page 82 and 83: 82 2- That the exclusion of Assan S
- Page 84 and 85: 84 4- That if the appeals Court wil
- Page 86 and 87: 86 Mr. Ousman Sarr (paternal brothe
- Page 88 and 89: 88 Rules 2010 which states that: Su
- Page 90 and 91: 90 stripes, and reject their testim
- Page 92 and 93: 92 allegation as stated in the Hadi
- Page 94 and 95: 94 guided by their provisions with
- Page 96 and 97: 96 properties one in Allen street o
- Page 98 and 99: 98 the appellant. As such the appli
- Page 100 and 101: 100 I find no difficulty in resolvi
- Page 102 and 103: 102 same way other cases are commen
- Page 104 and 105: 104 '' Under Islamic Law, the subje
- Page 106 and 107: 106 R. 77 (4) Any distribution of a
- Page 108 and 109: 108 single witness was called in th
- Page 110 and 111: 110 before judgment is entered agai
- Page 112 and 113: 112 A judge shall on no account rel
- Page 114 and 115: 114 these primary sources of Islami
- Page 116 and 117: 116 same lower court (Principal Cad
- Page 118 and 119: 118 4. The appellant being pregnant
- Page 120 and 121: 120 that she was not given the oppo
- Page 122 and 123: 122 their marriage was done by the
- Page 124 and 125: 124 (c) That when the appellant was
- Page 128 and 129: 128 UIN THE HIGH COURT OF THE GAMBI
- Page 130 and 131: 130 shall be filed within thirty da
- Page 132 and 133: 132 4. The fact that the appellant
- Page 134 and 135: 134 1. Fatou Dembajang- 4 years 2.
- Page 136 and 137: 136 1. Transfer the right of custod
- Page 138 and 139: 138 subsisting marriage between me
- Page 140 and 141: 140 At this juncture we requested t
- Page 142 and 143: 142 cover and having observed what
- Page 144 and 145: 144 reverted to Christianity, in th
- Page 146 and 147: 146 Pursuant to section 137A (6) of
- Page 148 and 149: 148 3. The applicants violated the
- Page 150 and 151: 150 ……….……..…..……
- Page 152 and 153: 152 clearly defined and limited the
- Page 154 and 155: 154 But at the same time if the sai
- Page 156 and 157: 156 Islamic Law. His interest in th
- Page 158 and 159: 158 contradict the provision of Sha
- Page 160 and 161: 160 ISSUE NO. 1 (Whether or not the
- Page 162 and 163: 162 before Banjul Cadi Court in the
- Page 164 and 165: 164 ''Two conditions are essential
- Page 166 and 167: 166 the court particularly the dist
- Page 168 and 169: 168 UIN THE HIGH COURT OF THE GAMBI
- Page 170 and 171: 170 UIN THE HIGH COURT OF THE GAMBI
- Page 172 and 173: 172 This is an appeal against the j
- Page 174 and 175: 174 For the second witness Mr. Lami
127<br />
with this issue. Since the appellant, has been divorced by the respondent<br />
consequent upon which she observed and completed her prescribed iddah, the law<br />
has not recognized her continued stay in the respondent’s house. The marital tie<br />
which entitles her to that has been severed by the respondent through divorce. The<br />
appellant’s prayer that the court should bring her back into possession can<br />
therefore not be sustained since she does not have any recognizable and<br />
enforceable right in Sharia to entitle her to that relief. Despite the fact that she did<br />
not have any recognizable right in Sharia, the appellant willingly chose to clog the<br />
wheel of justice by disrespecting the order of the lower court and refusing to vacate<br />
the house in question from 29/12/2010 when the order was given, until 14/2/2011<br />
when she was ejected from the house barely one and half months. This is despite<br />
the sum of D1,500.00 given to her by the respondent, as admitted by her, for that<br />
purpose. The appellant’s ejectment from the house of the respondent was therefore<br />
not wrongful since the appellant had no right in Sharia worthy of protection. This<br />
issue, as the previous one, is equally resolved in favour of the respondent.<br />
Based on the foregoing, the appeal fails and same is hereby dismissed. The<br />
decision of the lower court is hereby affirmed. The appellant was rightly ejected<br />
from the respondent’s house which is situate at Bakau, the Gambia.<br />
………….…………………….<br />
(Singed): Justice Omar A. Secka<br />
……………………………………..<br />
(Signed): Panelist Alh. Ousman Jah<br />
……………………………<br />
(Signed): Justice A. S. Usman<br />
..…….…………………………..<br />
(Signed): Panelist Alh. Masohna Kah
Change language