Preface
Preface
Preface
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
73<br />
This is an appeal against the decision of Budung Cadi Court between Alieu<br />
Barry plaintiff /appellant and Fatoumata Daffey Defendant respondent.<br />
The gist of the appeal briefly is that the appellant instituted an action against<br />
the respondent his {former wife} after narrating how their marital life was up to<br />
the time of divorce and subsequent delivery of baby girl by the respondent.<br />
The appellant basically claimed 2 things:<br />
1. Confirming paternity of the baby girl delivered by the respondent to him.<br />
2. Sustaining the name he chose for the baby girl delivered by the respondent<br />
as Naffy Barry see page 1 of the lower Court translated copy.<br />
The defendant / respondent re-acting to the claim of the appellant narrated<br />
her own story, and the relevant portion for the purpose of this appeal is that the<br />
appellant deserted her and initially rejected the pregnancy of the said baby girl i.e<br />
Naffy Barry but latter on accepted the pregnancy and named the Baby girl Naffy<br />
Barry. Due to disagreement between the appellant and the respondent parent<br />
regarding maintenance of the pregnancy, the respondent parent changed the name<br />
of Naffy Barry to Mariama Barry, the lower Court at the conclusion of the hearing,<br />
gave judgment inter-alia confirming the paternity of Naffy Barry to the appellant<br />
and ordered him to pay D4,500.00 as arrears of maintenance of his pregnancy<br />
to the respondent as well as paying D300 monthly for maintenance of his daughter<br />
Naffy Barry.<br />
Dissatisfied with the decision of the lower Court, the appellant appealed to<br />
this Honorable Court and filed 4 ground of appeal along with 2 prayers as follow:-<br />
1. That the order made by the Cadi that the appellant should pay the respondent<br />
the sum of D4, 500.00 as maintenance is wrong because the Cadi fail to<br />
consider the means of the appellant