Preface

70
how well conducted. The non-compliance with this requirement of proof by the
lower court has also rendered the case incurably defective as to justify the
disturbance of its findings on that ground by this panel.
On issue (c) whether the valuation of D382, 123.00 upon which the
distribution was based was in order? Order XIII Rule 77 (3) & (4) of the rules of
the lower court provides that a court shall not proceed to distribute any estate
without the prior valuation of same by a qualified estate valuer first had and
obtained. That any distribution done devoid of such valuation shall be null and
void. There were two valuations in respect of the property in question (copies of
which accompanied the record of proceedings of the lower court to this panel.)
One by Surveyor Joseph V. W. Lewis- Gaye of No. 5 Mantel Street, Banjul which
valued the property at D206, 372.00 as at 25/2/2010 and the other one by Ebrima
K. L. Drammeh of No. 38A Lancaster Street Banjul, which valued the property at
D680, 000.00 as at 22/3/2010. None of the two valuations formed the basis of the
lower court decision. Rather, the court went on a voyage of getting another value
for the property in the sum of D382, 123.00 upon which it based its decision and
shared the value to the parties. One would expect the lower court to base its
decision on any of the above two valuations or at least explain why it could not use
any of them and instead opted for the amount of D382, 123.00 which the appellant
could not agree with. The fact that none of the two valuations was used as a basis
for distribution by the lower court is tantamount to having none before it and this
has occasioned a miscarriage of justice to the appellant. Parties to an inheritance
case must all agree with valuation of the property which constitutes the subject
matter of distribution.
The valuation from the office of Joseph V. W. Lewis – Gaye complicated
the matter the more where it states: