Preface

162
before Banjul Cadi Court in the subject of selling the Compound of the late Haja
Bintou Jeng of 14 Gloster street Banjul. It revealed that the late has the following
beneficiaries: 1. Eddy Touray 2-Bakary Jeng 3- Ndey Shohna Jeng 4- Musa Jeng
5- Minga Jeng 6- Sadiq Mbye, the also survived with the husband named: Alh
Malick Jeng''
For easy understanding the import of the above statement I have underlined
the key words or expressions. They can be read thus: ( Mr. Malick Gaye the
plaintiff....has raised the petiton against Mr. Edy Touray....in the subject of
selling the compound of the late Hajia Bintou Jeng..... ) what will quickly come
to the mind of the first reader of this extract is that Mr. Malick and Mr. Edy were
in disagreement or dispute over the sale of a house belonging to late Hajia Bintou
that is why they came to the lower court to seek for the resolution of the
disagreement between them. There is nothing in the statement to give the
impression that Mr. Malick and Mr. Edy were in court for distribution of estate of
late Hajia Bintou. In fact words and expressions such as distribution of estate or
mirath or inheritance which if well coached, will give rise to a valid claim for
distribution of estate are not even mentioned in the purported statement of claim.
Conversely It is quite clear and discernable from the text of the claim that dispute
or disagreement over the sale of a house between the parties is what manifestly
appears to be the claim before the lower court. Now the question is: is this one of
the listed matters under section 137(4) of the Constitution as we have seen them
above? Certainly the answer is in the negative. The next question is did the court
have jurisdiction to hear and determine the case? Certainly the answer is in the
negative. Determination of this issue at this point based on the foregoing
authorities, facts and answers to the questions raised may not still seem to be apt