Preface

183
Coming to the last issue argued by the learned counsel Sisoho relating to the
ejectment of the children of the respondent from his own compound, we do not
agree with the learned counsel that the lower Court has taken any decision on that
matter according to the judgment. It stated only the issue of divorce and
maintenance of the divorced wife during the waiting period and end of waiting
period. See P8 of the Judgment. But hence the plaintiff/ respondent mentioned it
in his claim before the lower Court as stated in page 2 as follow: “so my capacity
as the father and owner of the compound I want to see that the following are out of
my compound.
1. Divorced wife
2. Bakery Dampha
3. Ansumana Dampha
4. Kaddy Dampha.
This is clear that he claimed to eject those mentioned children with their
mother but the lower Court was silent on it. This was mentioned in the claim
before it and it was wrong for the court not to consider it. The conditions which a
valid claim must fulfill are?
1. A clear statement of the claim.
2. The proper description of the subject matter.
And when we look at the claim the first condition was fulfilled while it was
up to the lower Court to ensure the fulfillment of the second condition but did not.
Based on this reason this ground succeeds. In the final analysis we hereby declare
that this appeal succeeds partly.