 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
toubab1020
12311 Posts |
 Posted - 10 Feb 2011 : 21:32:17
|
Picture the scene Brikama High court,a land dispute is being judged,one lawyer is late, adjournment for 10 mins whilst she arrived, "she was on the way coming but the traffic was slowing down her mobility" legal arguement then took place which resulted in everyone becoming more confused than ever,witnesses were heard,nothing was decided,case adjourned,they all them must have gone home,have a read.
http://www.foroyaa.gm/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6145
Imam Abdukarim Tambedou Testifies In Land Dispute Case
By Publisher on 10-02-11 (74 reads) News by the same author
By Lamin Sanyang
The civil suit pertaining to the land dispute between the family of Sulayman Tambedou of Bijilo and Edris Bensouda was presided over by Justice Edrissa Mbye at the High Court in Brikama on Tuesday 8th February 2011.
When the case was called, Lawyer Ida Drammeh stood and announced her appearance for the defendant while the plaintiff, Mr. Sulayman Tambedou announced his presence, but his counsel Lawyer Hawa Ceesay-Sabally was not in court. The court stood down the matter for ten minutes to wait for the counsel of the plaintiff to arrive.
When the lawyer for the plaintiff arrived, she apologized and told the court that her office has called to inform the court that she was on the way coming but the traffic was slowing down her mobility. She told the court that both the first plaintiff, Sulayman Tambedou and the second plaintiff, Imam Abdukarim Tambedou (imam of Bijilo Central mosque) were present in court. She then proceeded to pose questions to the witness (second plaintiff).
Examination of the second plaintiff by Counsel Hawa Sisay-Sabally
The counsel for the plaintiff asked the witness whether he knows the boundaries between Brufut and Bijilo which the witness (Imam Abdukarim Tambedou) answered in the affirmative. She asked the witness whether the District Tribunal of Kombo north knows the boundaries between these two places. The defense counsel objected to the question, arguing that that was a presumption. She said it is not possible for one person to say what the other person knows. She argued that the question should not be allowed. The counsel for the plaintiff, Hawa Sisay Sabally, said that the objection was misconceived. She said the question put to the witness has nothing to do with the law and it is not a legal question. She said the question was not a presumption. She said the question is as to whether the District Tribunal knows the boundaries between Brufut and Bijilo. She said the question of boundaries is an issue of fact that is important to the case. She urged the court to overrule the objection raised by the defendant and allow the question.
The defense counsel, Ida Drammeh, said that the counsel for the plaintiff suggested that the truth of the issue was raised by the witness, but that the law has to prove the credence to the material facts. The counsel for the plaintiff, Hawa Sisay Sabally, argued that the submission has to be in a manner of law in respect of the evidence that was given. She said the issue of boundary has proof to the evidence of law. The defense counsel argued that it was out of order as the court knows the boundary.
However the court upheld the objection and overruled the question. The counsel for the plaintiff continued to examine the witness. She asked the witness whether he visited the area which he answered in the affirmative. She asked whether he showed members of the District Tribunal the boundary between Brufut and Bijilo which he answered in the positive. She told the witness that he informed the court that he was invited to the District Tribunal. The witness said he was invited because the first plaintiff (Sulayman) was the one who took the matter to the District Tribunal of Kombo North. The witness said he was called to verify the boundaries between Brufut and Bijilo which he did.
At this juncture, the defence counsel stood and said she wants to be guided by the court on the issue of District Tribunal because what happened at the Tribunal was irrelevant. The counsel for the plaintiff said she did not understand whether the statement was an objection, but feels the issue is relevant. She stated that the said land was between Brufut and Bijilo. She said the issue of land and District Tribunal is in the file suit. She said she did not understand why it is not pleaded. The defence counsel said the plaintiff should tell the court whether they are entitled to the land or not.
The counsel for the plaintiff, Hawa Sisay Sabally, said the case was amended and they have filed the motion at the High Court before Justice Rose. She said the amended statement of the case was filed in the year 2009. The witness continued to testify that the first plaintiff (Sulayman Tambedou) informed members of the District Tribunal that one of his brothers knows the area in dispute. The witness said summon was prepared for him to answer to the District Tribunal.
At this juncture, the counsel for the plaintiff said that was all she has for the witness.
Cross-Examination of the Witness by the Defense counsel
The defense counsel, Ida Drammeh, asked the witness whether he is literate; and he answered that he is not literate in Western education. She asked the witness whether he can read a map. The witness told the defence to tell him what a map is. The defense counsel asked the witness whether he had never seen a map between Brufut, Bijilo and Tranquil area. She explained to him that a map is a drawing that shows borders between places. The witness told the defence that they did not ask him that question at the District Tribunal. He told the defence counsel that he was only asked to verify the said area to the Tribunal.
The defence counsel asked the witness whether he knows what a State land is but the court interpreter found it difficult to translate the direct word ‘state lands’ in Wolof which confused the witness to respond that he lives in Bijilo and not in Brufut. The defense counsel, Ida Drammeh, told him that government has designated part of Bijilo. The witness responded that he knows the area that government has identified as its own in Bijilo. The defense counsel asked him whether he has any documents which showed his ownership of the land in Bijilo. The witness answered that there are some that has documents and others are farmlands. The defencce asked whether he has documents that showed the time he has acquired the lands in Bijilo which he responded in the positive. He was asked whether he had them with him at the court which he replied in the negative. He was asked whether that was the only property he has in Bijilo. He said he has another land which he is not living in, but has a document.
The defence asked the witness whether he has leased documents for the lands. The witness asked what a leased document is and the defense asked whether he did not know what a leased document is. The witness said if he knows he would not ask her. He asked the defense whether all the compounds in the Gambia are leased. The defense argued that if the witness persist on this type of behavior, she will not proceed with the cross examination.
At this juncture, the counsel for the plaintiff stood and told the court that the witness needs help; that the court should clarify things and protect him. The defense was told by the court that the witness does not say he did not understand. The witness told the court what he knows is to acquire land from the Alkalo who would asked about the location of the land. The defense asked whether that was what he knows about leased documents. The counsel for the plaintiff stood again and said that according to the Local Government Act, Alkalos are part of government.
The witness continue to say that normally people go to the Alkalo to get papers for the land and he would write names in the book and submit to the Area Councils so that the person could pay rates. He said lands without buildings would pay forty dalasi every year. The defence said she is not interested in the amount paid. She asked the witness whether he is a brother to the first plaintiff (Sulayman Tambedou) which he responded in the affirmative. The defence ended the cross-examination and the counsel for the plaintiff said she is not going to re-examine the witness. The witness was asked to stand down from the box. The case was adjourned till Thursday 10th February 2011.
THERE IT'S ALL AS CLEAR AS MUD   
|
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
Edited by - toubab1020 on 10 Feb 2011 23:06:41 |
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
 |
|
|
Topic Locked
