Preface
Preface
Preface
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