Preface

36
This Panel has gone through the grounds of appeal and the submissions of
the attorneys on them and it finds it difficult to agree with the appellant on ground
1 that the lower Islamic Court forced the inheritors against their will to accept their
allocated compound by compensatory scheme. This is because the record of
proceedings of the lower court showed that the parties were asked to voice out
their opinion after the presentation of the report of the valuation and before final
decision by the court. All the parties, including the appellant, agreed that the matter
should proceed to the end. Furthermore, the lower court after clearly stating in the
record that each widower is entitled to the sum of D44, 970.21, it went further to
ask them (appellant inclusive) if they wanted to receive their shares in cash. The
appellant responded thus “yes we shall do that; I will contact my children to
remit the money if I know the exact compensatory amount”. Pursuant to this,
the appellant made an advance payment of D4, 812.00 and this is attested to by the
respondent.
The compound at Banjul was allocated to the appellant and her children
while the one at Dippa Kunda to the respondent and her children. The lower
court’s judgment is to the effect that each of them should purchase the allocated
compound from their allotted shares of inheritance and pay the excess there from
to the other inheritors in cash and this was done with the consent of all. There is
therefore no substance in the appellant’s argument on this issue of coercion. The
Panel therefore affirms the decision of the lower court on this ground relying on
the book of Fawakihud Dawani Vol. 2 page 398 in the chapter dealing with
Adjudication and Evidence that “when division is conducted in accordance with
Sharia, it becomes indispensable and irrevocable”.