Preface

32
disputing the right of these people to inheritance including the right of the four
widowers in their collective 1/8 share. But the point of contention is the
compulsion by the lower court forcing one of the heirs to inherit a specific portion
or thing in the estate. The two properties in Banjul and Dippa Kunda are large
enough for all the inheritors. It is not permissible to force some heirs to accept their
share in the compound in Banjul while forcing others to accept it from Dippa
Kunda.
He argued further that mathematically, there is discrepancy between the
children of Aji Fanta Drammeh and those of Hauwa Sillah only in regard to shares
and actually there is a vast difference regarding their shares of the estate.
On the areas of the two compounds, the attorney submitted that the one at
Dippa Kunda measures 1623m2 and the one at Banjul is 338.4m2. Thus, is it just
for the share of six children to be this size and the share of seven children to be
that? They should have been consulted and allowed to make free choices but not to
force them as stated in page 7 of the record of proceedings. Mr. Darbo applied to
the court verbally that review should be had regarding the valuation.
Responding, the attorney to the respondent Mr. Borry Touray on 21/11/2007
submitted that the appeal be struck out for lacking legal validity. He submitted
further that the total number of the inheritors is 17 children; among them is 10
males and 7 females. The inheritance was only divided between the wives and
children. No complaint was raised to the effect that there was an inheritor who
received a portion other than those mentioned. The attorney further submitted that
there is no complaint that the deceased left another estate other than this one which
is not distributed or divided. The entire estate is represented in two compounds
only. He added that there is no complaint as well that a group of the inheritors have