 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
toubab1020
12312 Posts |
 Posted - 18 Jan 2010 : 15:56:39
|
I suppose Musa Sanyang would be the one to sue loss of earnings etc and the cost of the van since it appears to have "disappeared" and it was his order that this be done as it would appear from Afonso's posting that he acted outside the regulations,He is personally responsible.
What do you think?
quote:
Originally posted by kayjatta
quote:
Originally posted by afonso
This is a clear abuse of Office by Officer Musa Sanyang and his group. The vehicle if found with a defective mirror should have been tested there by badjan the testing officer and the driver served with a summons to appear in court if need be. There is no justification in impounding the vehicle when the testing officer present could have tested the vehicle instantly and give a verdict.Its unlawful to cease someones vehicle on such grounds thus deny him of his livelihood since September 2008 to date. The driver should sue them for loss of earning including the loss of his vehicle. Then and there such irresponsible Police Officers would learn to go by the game.The President was just talking about such few days back and now this has surfaced, I seek the most appropriate sanction on this matter to deter a recurrence
I totally agree. Perhaps a civil suit should be considered in parallel to the ongoing criminal investigation...
|
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
 |
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jan 2010 : 07:06:36
|
You are right Toubab that he (Musa Sanyang)is personally responsible; but it might also be true that in committing the wrongful act he was acting within the scope and in furtherance of his employment as a police officer. Therefore, he could be sued as an individual but also jointly with his employer (the police dept) through the doctrine of vicarious liability. It is important to note that when the vehicle was seized, it was stored (parked) on the property of his employer from where it went missing. Therefore, the employer must assume responsibility. The employer is responsible for the wrongs committed by its employees while acting within the scope and in furtherance of their employment.
Like wise, all other participants in the act (with Musa Sanyang) could be separately sued jointly with their respective employers. This is what I think.
Note: Kayjatta is not an attorney and has no legal qualifications.
|
|
|
|
toubab1020
12312 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jan 2010 : 12:59:14
|
That would seem a very effective way to deal with the facts, the lawyers would have a field day ,all those defendants all that statement taking all those "fees" all those opinions to be sought, money for old rope as the English saying goes,quite a lot of work just for the van owner to get compensation, that's the "law" for you.
I will be very interested in what.... The Gambian result..... will be. |
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
|
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jan 2010 : 13:10:33
|
| It will be a legal field day. A legal mine field also. Remember, civilized people consume one another (not by killing and eating one another's flesh like animals do but) by the due process of law ... :). The van owner could recover compensatory damages for the van, loss of income, pain and suffering, as well as punitive damages; you do the math, Toubab :) |
|
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jan 2010 : 13:40:27
|
The Gambian result could be disappointing though. It could turn out to be an ugly miscarriage of justice, as usual. Justice is still a luxury that is alrgely unaffordable by the "little guy" in the Gambia...  |
|
|
|
toubab1020
12312 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jan 2010 : 13:40:58
|
Ahh...........YES the fees  ..............hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm lovely
Chips with that very large steak sir ?
quote:
Originally posted by kayjatta
It will be a legal field day. A legal mine field also. Remember, civilized people consume one another (not by killing and eating one another's flesh like animals do but) by the due process of law ... :). The van owner could recover compensatory damages for the van, loss of income, pain and suffering, as well as punitive damages; you do the math, Toubab :)
|
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
Edited by - toubab1020 on 19 Jan 2010 13:42:35 |
|
|
|
afonso
Gambia
13 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jan 2010 : 14:58:20
|
Well Kayajatta, I agree the Police Dept should be part of the suit,but the issue here is that many Police officers do such selfish greedy acts without the instruction or directives from their bosses, they are at times too big headed. The fault of his bosses is that there should have been a propoer handing and taking over process at the starting and ending of each shift, thus all vehicles and persons parked or detained in the Police premises should be accounted for by the shift head assuming duty. This was the method previous Police heads use to monitor illegal detentions and all discrepancies relating to property under police custody.Police men on duty were given hell time if people are found illegally detained or some property found in the police custody cannot be accounted for gets missing or damaged . Senior Police officer performed a duty Officer role. Each day for 24 hours one senior police officer will ensure he checks all police stations to see if all was okay, and he goes to bed by 12am, but still subject to address any emergency situation that might happen during the night
Unfortunately,now all this has stopped and it started with Police Officers confisicating drivers licences only to recklessly and cheekily loose them and subject the owner to a hard, costly,long and frustrating replacement process.I am not surprised that a van under Police custody has disappeared, soon Police buildings wil disappear
quote:
Originally posted by kayjatta
You are right Toubab that he (Musa Sanyang)is personally responsible; but it might also be true that in committing the wrongful act he was acting within the scope and in furtherance of his employment as a police officer. Therefore, he could be sued as an individual but also jointly with his employer (the police dept) through the doctrine of vicarious liability. It is important to note that when the vehicle was seized, it was stored (parked) on the property of his employer from where it went missing. Therefore, the employer must assume responsibility. The employer is responsible for the wrongs committed by its employees while acting within the scope and in furtherance of their employment.
Like wise, all other participants in the act (with Musa Sanyang) could be separately sued jointly with their respective employers. This is what I think.
Note: Kayjatta is not an attorney and has no legal qualifications.
|
Lets exchange valuable ideas |
|
|
|
toubab1020
12312 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jan 2010 : 15:06:20
|
Well said afonso,let common sense and personal responsible behavior return .
|
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
