Illegal demolition of more than 50 compounds by the Sheriff Division at Tujereng


I write in response to Mr. Gibba’s statement on the Point Newspaper on the 17/7/2019 with regard to the Illegal demolition of more than 50 compounds at Tujereng. I would first thank Mr. Gibba for substantiating my allegation that them and the Sheriff Division relied on FOUR different Sketch Plan to carry out the illegal demolition. He mentioned that the first THREE SKETCH PLANS were drawn by Lamin Jatta who is the SON to the old man and the latest ONE produce in MAY 2019 was drawn by him Mr. Gibba the grandson of the old man all for the same piece of land. Let the general public know that all these THREE SKETCH Plans were produce TEN YEARS and the FOURTH ONE 15YEARS after the District Tribunal Judgment 2002 between Kamaro S Jatta and Yankuba Bayo.

There are few things he need to know about this District Tribunal Judgment and I would advise for him to visit a lawyer for more clarity.

District Tribunal Judgment didn’t show the area of land it affected as no mention of the dimension of that land was made in the judgment. Also there was no sketch plan attached to it from 2004 to 2014. So any document produce as attachment to this Judgment is ILLEGAL and WRONG without any court order. Also let him visit the famous Supreme Court ruling on Fatou Badjie vs Jossep Bassen with regard to land cases. I would make few reference from that Supreme Court ruling for him to understand.

  • The mere mention of the name of the land is not enough. The description and boundaries of the land must be proved accurately. [Odiche v Chibogwu (1994) 7-8 SCNJ 317; Okedara v Adebara & Ors (1994) 6 SCNJ 254 referred to]
  • In an action for declaration of title and or other reliefs concerning land, part of the duty of the plaintiff to prove his claim includes the duty to accurately identify the Suitland. It is trite law as restated by the Court in Maberi v Alade & Ors (1987) 4 SCNJ 102 and in Ugbo v Aburime (1994) 9 SCNJ 213, that where a plaintiff in an action for declaration of title fails, as in this case, to prove the boundaries, dimension or extent and features of the Suitland, he has failed to prove his case and the claim will be dismissed. The duty to accurately identify the land requires the plaintiff to plead in the statement of claim facts which clearly describe the identity of the Suitland. If the statement of claim does not clearly identify the Suitland, then the plaintiff would have failed to prove the identity of the Suitland. So the identity of the Suitland becomes an issue not only when the defendant disputes it, but also where the facts in the plaintiff’s statement of claim do not describe its limits, extent and salient features so as to make it easily ascertainable and put it beyond doubt.

I don’t blame him for his ignorance but the Sheriff Division who should better know that a judgment without a DIMENSION or SKETCH PLAN cannot be Enforce.

What can be seen from this case is that the Sheriff of the high court together with Mr. Daffeh from the Physical Planning have conducted an act that tantamount to the ABUSE OF OFFICE when they have taken their official positions to create a Sketch Plan without any court order to carry the demolishing excise which is wrong and illegal. Mr. Daffeh from the Physical Planning is one who have drawn the Sketch Plan and was the one who lead the demolishing team. How can one be a judge in your own case as in this that Mr. Daffeh draw the plan and went ahead to carry the demolition without it been brought before the affect party to challenge. The four people who took a field visit to the suit area are not from Tujereng and none of representative from the Alkali or District Tribunal was present.

The SHRIFF DIVISION fails Gambian by acting in such an ignorant manner and trying to tarnish the image and the integrity of the Gambia Judiciary System. We would appealed to Chief Justice to look into matters.

Also let the competent Authorities be aware of what is emanating from our Judiciary System.

My question for voluntary contribution from any legal person.

  • Are these SKETCH PLANs authentic to warrant for demolition as they were NEVER TENDERED or ADMITTED before any Court or Tribunal?
  • Is the SKETCH PLAN correct to warrant for demolition as the The DIMENTIONS those not correspond to the FEATURES?
  • If the SKETCH PLANS can be enforce which one among these FOUR SKETCH PLANS is enfroceable.
  • If any one of these Sketch Plan is enforceable should it be more than the Dimention given by the District Tribunal.
  • Are these actions not a fraudlent act liable for prosecution?
  • Is the action of Sheriff and Mr. Daffeh of Physical Planning not a criminal Act by producing a Sketch plan to carry demolition without going through the court process.
  • Does the Sheriff have the power to request for a sketch plan for onbehalf of one party to be use against the other party.

I rest my case.

By Omar Bojang.

Join The Conversation