Preface

63
It’s against this sharing that the appellant appealed to this panel upon the
grounds set out hereunder;
1. That the Cadi was wrong in the way and manner in which the property was
shared as it was not done with fairness and equity and more over was against
the rules of natural justice and the Sharia,
2. That the Cadi decision to give to the appellant the sum of D54, 000 was
wrong because it was not done with fairness,
3. That the decision by the Cadi to pay the D54, 000 to the appellant by
installment is wrong,
4. That the judgment was not done according to the rules of inheritance as
stipulated in the holy Koran specifically the rules of the Sharia and
5. That the judgment was wrong, unreliable and one sided.
The appeal came up for hearing on 1st March 2011 on which day all the
parties were present except the 2nd respondent Lamin Faye who the 1st respondent
said he traveled to the US long before the service of the process of this panel on
them. That they contacted him on phone and he instructed that they should proceed
with the case in his absence. Based on this, the court proceeded to hearing.
At the hearing the appellant argued her case in person based on the aforestated
grounds. For the sake of convenience, I will merge grounds 2 and 3 together
as well as grounds 4 and 5. On ground 1 the appellant submitted that the judgment
was not in compliance with the rules of Sharia because the lower court used the
valuation of her opponents as against her wish. On grounds 2 and 3 the appellant
submitted further that the lower court mixed up the valuations because it topped
her opponent`s valuation with her own hence the reason for rejecting the D54,
000.00. On grounds 4 and 5 it was the appellant’s submission that it was wrong in