Preface
Preface Preface
74 2. That the change of name was wrong as the appellant had given the Naffie Barry to child after her birth. 3. That the order for refund for the total expenses incurred during the marriage is wrong because the respondent denounce the marriage and absconded and was not seen by the appellant up to her delivery. 4. That the judgment was one sided and biased and cannot be supported by any law in both the Sharia and equity. RELIEF SOUGHT FROM THE PANEL 1. That the order for the appellant to pay to the respondent the sum of D4, 500.00 as maintenance be set aside and in the alternative a reasonable amount be ordered taking into consideration the means of the appellant and order be made for the appellant to be given the custody of the child as the appellant can properly take of the child. 2. Any order or further orders that Court deems fit On the 1 st march 2011, the date fixed for hearing of the appeal, the appellant adopted his grounds of appeal and initially he informed the Court that he has nothing to add and urged the Court to allow the appeal by granting the reliefs he sought. Responding to the grounds, the respondent urged the Court not to interfere with the decision of the lower Court because it was rightly decided. The espondent further stated that the appellant abandoned her while she is pregnant as a result she went to her grant mother`s house where she delivered the said baby girl without having anything from the appellant. We carefully considered the record of proceeding of the lower Court together with the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant and the responds of the
75 respondent, this honorable Court is of view that the relevant issues for determination on this appeal is as follows:- 1. Whether the lower Court was right in awarding D4,500.00 to the respondent as arrears of maintenances of the respondent pregnancy without considering the financial condition of the appellant? 2. Whether the respondent`s parent have the right to change the name given by the appellant from Naffy Barry to Mariama Barry. 3. Whether the right of custody is with the appellant or the respondent With regard to issue No.1, we went through the record of proceeding, of the lower Court, no where the learned Cadi enquire into the financial status of the appellant before awarding the sum of D4,500.00 as arrears of maintenance of pregnancy of the respondent. While the position of Islamic law is that in determining the amount of maintenance generally, regard must be had to the financial status of the husband, the Holy Quran provides. – Meaning: “Let him who has abundance spend out of has abundance, and who ever has was means of sustenance strained to him, let him spend out of that which Allah has given him” To ascertain the financial ability of the appellant and in line with the provision of the above quoted verse, we asked the appellant what he does for a living. The appellant answered that he is not working but a trainee receiving D750 monthly, with responsibility of taking care of his aged parent. We then asked the respondent about the assertion of the appellant regarding his means of livelihoods;
- Page 24 and 25: 24 and she was very small so she wa
- Page 26 and 27: 26 Secondly, we accepted the decisi
- Page 28 and 29: 28 Musa Sabily shall have D112962.5
- Page 30 and 31: 30 5. Evidence is invalidated if sh
- Page 32 and 33: 32 disputing the right of these peo
- Page 34 and 35: 34 estate among his heirs, this pro
- Page 36 and 37: 36 This Panel has gone through the
- Page 38 and 39: 38 Shares: Share: 1. 10 7 27 D175,0
- Page 40 and 41: 40 …………………………
- Page 42 and 43: 42 at Street 45 Stanley Banjul belo
- Page 44 and 45: 44 “I was called there in the cou
- Page 46 and 47: 46 About the submission by the appe
- Page 48 and 49: 48 UIN THE HIGH COURT OF THE GAMBIA
- Page 50 and 51: 50 house of one Kebba Kebbeh at San
- Page 52 and 53: 52 a while and satisfy itself on wh
- Page 54 and 55: 54 From the totality of the foregoi
- Page 56 and 57: 56 for joinder as an interested par
- Page 58 and 59: 58 the rate of D8,250.00 and D25.00
- Page 60 and 61: 60 UIN THE HIGH COURT OF THE GAMBIA
- Page 62 and 63: 62 The claimant’s oath in (c) and
- Page 64 and 65: 64 Islam to exclude her from the va
- Page 66 and 67: 66 of the subject matter of the cla
- Page 68 and 69: 68 The above issues were not proved
- Page 70 and 71: 70 how well conducted. The non-comp
- Page 72 and 73: 72 UIN THE HIGH COURT OF THE GAMBIA
- Page 76 and 77: 76 she confirmed what the appellant
- Page 78 and 79: 78 On this note, we hereby declared
- Page 80 and 81: 80 JUDGMENT Written & delivered by
- Page 82 and 83: 82 2- That the exclusion of Assan S
- Page 84 and 85: 84 4- That if the appeals Court wil
- Page 86 and 87: 86 Mr. Ousman Sarr (paternal brothe
- Page 88 and 89: 88 Rules 2010 which states that: Su
- Page 90 and 91: 90 stripes, and reject their testim
- Page 92 and 93: 92 allegation as stated in the Hadi
- Page 94 and 95: 94 guided by their provisions with
- Page 96 and 97: 96 properties one in Allen street o
- Page 98 and 99: 98 the appellant. As such the appli
- Page 100 and 101: 100 I find no difficulty in resolvi
- Page 102 and 103: 102 same way other cases are commen
- Page 104 and 105: 104 '' Under Islamic Law, the subje
- Page 106 and 107: 106 R. 77 (4) Any distribution of a
- Page 108 and 109: 108 single witness was called in th
- Page 110 and 111: 110 before judgment is entered agai
- Page 112 and 113: 112 A judge shall on no account rel
- Page 114 and 115: 114 these primary sources of Islami
- Page 116 and 117: 116 same lower court (Principal Cad
- Page 118 and 119: 118 4. The appellant being pregnant
- Page 120 and 121: 120 that she was not given the oppo
- Page 122 and 123: 122 their marriage was done by the
74<br />
2. That the change of name was wrong as the appellant had given the Naffie<br />
Barry to child after her birth.<br />
3. That the order for refund for the total expenses incurred during the marriage<br />
is wrong because the respondent denounce the marriage and absconded and<br />
was not seen by the appellant up to her delivery.<br />
4. That the judgment was one sided and biased and cannot be supported by any<br />
law in both the Sharia and equity.<br />
RELIEF SOUGHT FROM THE PANEL<br />
1. That the order for the appellant to pay to the respondent the sum of D4,<br />
500.00 as maintenance be set aside and in the alternative a reasonable<br />
amount be ordered taking into consideration the means of the appellant and<br />
order be made for the appellant to be given the custody of the child as the<br />
appellant can properly take of the child.<br />
2. Any order or further orders that Court deems fit<br />
On the 1 st march 2011, the date fixed for hearing of the appeal, the appellant<br />
adopted his grounds of appeal and initially he informed the Court that he has<br />
nothing to add and urged the Court to allow the appeal by granting the reliefs he<br />
sought.<br />
Responding to the grounds, the respondent urged the Court not to interfere<br />
with the decision of the lower Court because it was rightly decided. The espondent<br />
further stated that the appellant abandoned her while she is pregnant as a result<br />
she went to her grant mother`s house where she delivered the said baby girl<br />
without having anything from the appellant.<br />
We carefully considered the record of proceeding of the lower Court<br />
together with the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant and the responds of the
Change language