15.03.2015 Views

Preface

Preface

Preface

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

64<br />

Islam to exclude her from the valuation which included the physical structures of<br />

block work constructed on the property since she is entitled to inherit from her<br />

mother`s property. She maintained that it’s the 2nd respondent (Lamin Faye) who<br />

was instrumental to her being excluded and the lower court proceeded on that lane.<br />

She concluded her argument by praying the panel to set aside the decision of the<br />

lower court by re-sharing the property.<br />

The respondents in turn, starting with the 1st respondent (Sirandou Faye)<br />

argued the case based on the said grounds. On ground 1 the 1st respondent<br />

submitted that the judgment of the lower court was in order. On grounds 2 and 3<br />

she submitted further that she agreed with the share of D54, 000 but opposed to<br />

paying the appellant by installments. That the appellant should be paid at once. On<br />

grounds 4 and 5 she argued that she agreed with the judgment of the lower court<br />

and that same is in order. The 3rd and 4th respondents. (Ida Faye and Mbaye Faye)<br />

adopted the submission of the 1st respondent but the 4th respondent added that the<br />

appellant agreed with the sum of D54, 000 ab initio and that was why they made<br />

arrangements towards payment of same to her. That the appellant rejected the<br />

valuation because the block work constructed by the 2nd respondent on the land<br />

was not included in the valuation they (the respondents) presented to the court<br />

while she (the appellant) included it in her own. When asked to clarify the matter<br />

further, the 4th respondent submitted that the valuation which constituted the basis<br />

for distribution of property No. 2 Mantel Street Banjul was done excluding the<br />

physical structures that were constructed thereon by the 1st respondent for their<br />

late mother. In other words, it was not a real valuation consisting of physical block<br />

structures on the land but an imaginary one consisting of a wooden structure that<br />

was on the land before the block structure. That is, even if the appellant claims that<br />

she is entitled to the property in contention by descent from its owner and succeeds

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!