Galp Gambia Ltd seeks court

Galp Gambia Ltd has dragged one Jimmy Forster to the Kanifing Magistrates’ Court, claiming a total of D68,824 being arrears of rent the defendant failed to pay, having occupied a portion of the plaintiff’s filling station as a restaurant at Churchill’s Town against the wishes of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff also claimed rental arrears by the defendant for another restaurant occupied by the defendant in Banjul.

According to the particulars of claim of the plaintiff, at the request of the defendant, the plaintiff agreed with the defendant that the defendant could remain and occupy a portion of the premises comprised in and being part of the plaintiff’s Churchill’s Town filling Station.

Galp Gambia Ltd claimed that the defendant was required to pay rent for the period of his occupation of the said premises.

The plaintiff further claimed that for the defendant to be permitted to continue to occupy the said premises, he should sign a tenancy agreement embodying the terms of the tenancy.

The plaintiff also said he prepared a tenancy agreement between itself and the defendant.

Galp Gambia Ltd also said the defendant refused to sign the fresh tenancy agreement and refused to pay rent for the period he had remained in the plaintiff’s premises.

Despite several demands made by the plaintiff to the defendant both in writing and orally, claimed the plaintiff, the defendant had failed and or refused to do so.

Galp Gambia Ltd further claimed that since the defendant had refused or failed to sign the contract and pay the rent, the plaintiff served him a notice to vacate the said premises within 30 days starting 20 December 2010.

Despite the notice to quit given to the defendant, claimed the plaintiff, he has continued to occupy the said premises wrongly claiming that he has made investment in the premises.

The plaintiff claimed that the defendant has failed to vacate the premises or pay for his occupation of the premises or act in accordance with the instructions of the plaintiff.

Galp Gambia Ltd further claimed that it had been deprived of the benefit of the said premises.