Preface

161
It is upon this premise coupled with the fact that the issue was neither made
as one of the grounds of this appeal nor any of the counsel of the parties ever
thought of adverting his mind to it while addressing us, that we felt obliged to raise
it based on our careful examination of the record of the lower court at our disposal.
Having said this much I will now venture into examination and determination of
the issue.
The general rule is that it is the claim before the court that determines its
jurisdiction. See I. E. C v N. A. D. D (Supra). See also Tukur v Government of
Gondola State (1989) 9 SCNJ 1. Ordinarily the process is to look at the statement
of claim before the court and see if there is enough material on record disclosing
want of jurisdiction on the part of the court. Section 137 (4) of the 1997
Constitution of the Gambia has clearly defined and limited the jurisdiction of Cadi
Court to application of Sharia to matters of marriage, divorce and inheritance
where the parties or other persons interested are Muslims. Our careful perusal and
consideration of the entire record of proceedings of the lower court couldn’t set our
eyes at a proper, clear, concise and unambiguous statement of claim which satisfies
the constitutional, procedural and Islamic law requirements of a valid statement of
claim.
However if we take a close look at page 1 of the record we will still find
some vague statements which might be intended to be the statement of claim. The
subject matter of this statement is the issue of sale of a landed property i.e. house
No. 14 Gloster Street Banjul which is not within the items listed under section 137
(4) of the constitution as we have seen them above . The statement in question
reads thus ''...... Mr. Malick Gaye the plaintiff who lived in Serakunda has raised
the petition against Mr. Edy Touray who also lived in Banjul, the case is called