Lawyer Edu Gomez, representing Sainey Barrow, who was sued at the Kanifing Magistrates’ Court by one Alagie Suso for failing to procure him a visa he paid Barrow for, on 3 December 2013, continued cross-examining the plaintiff before Magistrate Jobarteh.
“You told the court that you contracted with the defendant for a Schengen visa,” said Lawyer Gomez.
“Yes,” Alagie Suso responded.
“I am putting it to you that you knew very well that you contracted with the defendant for a Romanian visa,” challenged Lawyer Gomez.
“It is not true,” Suso answered.
“When you and the defendant went to Dakar for the purpose of the visa, you went with four other people,” Lawyer Gomez put it to Suso.
“It was four of us,” Suso said.
“When you went, there was a meeting which you and your companions all attended pertaining the Romanian visa,” said Lawyer Gomez.
“It is not correct,” replied Suso.
“I am putting it to you that all of you were provided with Romanian visa,” Lawyer Gomez challenged.
“The defendant gave us Romanian visas,” answered Suso.
“Can you read and write?” Lawyer Gomez wanted to know.
“No,” Suso replied.
“You never went to school?” asked Lawyer Gomez,
“I went up to Grade 9,” answered Suso.
“You went up to Grade 9 and you cannot read,” said Lawyer Gomez.
“Yes,” Suso replied.
“You were provided with visas and air ticket by the defendant,” Lawyer Gomez put it to Suso.
“We agreed with the defendant to provide us with a Schengen visa and air ticket,” Said Suso.
“I put it to you that you went to the airport and your colleagues to fly,” Lawyer Gomez commented.
“We went to the airport but we were stopped from flying with the visa and air ticket which were bought from the same airline,” Suso told the court.
“I am putting it to you that the airline did not stop you from flying but it was the profiler that stopped you,” Lawyer Gomez challenged.
“The defendant told us that he bought the air ticket from Spanair and it was Spanair that stopped us from flying because the tickets and visas were fake,” said Suso.
“Modou Touray, Ebrima Manneh, Bakary Darboe, Abdoulie Joof and yourself went to the defendant to procure visas for you,” Lawyer Gomez put it to Suso.
“I know that I named three people and myself,” answered Suso.
“All of you travelled to Dakar pursuance to the arrangement for Romanian visa,” said Lawyer Gomez.
“Four of us went to Dakar and we discussed with the defendant for Schengen visa,” Suso revealed.
“I am putting it to you that the defendant, when the problem arose with regard the profiler at the airport, the Romanian Embassy in Dakar wrote to explain the situation that the visas were valid,” said Lawyer Gomez.
“I don’t know,” Suso told the court.
“I am putting it to you that in the interim, the defendant did not manifest the callous attitude to the court, your claim that you suffered some losses and that you lost your child is not true,” Lawyer Gomez was heard saying.
“I asked the defendant for the money, to cure my child,” narrated Suso.
“That is not true because you wanted to provoke the sympathy of the court,” challenged Lawyer Gomez.
“It is not true,” Suso replied.
“Is it not right that the defendant on occasions gave you money and bought you a bag of rice to alleviate your predicament?” Lawyer Gomez questioned.
“He bought me a bag of rice but did not give me money,” Suso told the court.
“The defendant said he would do everything possible to recover monies that were due and spent in the process of the transaction,” stated Lawyer Gomez.
“Yes,” Suso answered.
“You understood full well that your inability to travel was not caused by the defendant,” Lawyer Gomez put it to Suso.
“He was the cause,” Suso revealed.
“In furtherance of the understanding that the defendant was not the cause of your inability to travel, you accepted half of the money you spent,” said Lawyer Gomez.
“I don’t agree,” Suso told the court.
“You took the Quran and swore. You accepted that the defendant will pay you half of the money you spent,” Lawyer Gomez put it to Suso.
“I don’t agree,” Suso repeated.
“You know the type of contract you entered,” stated Lawyer Gomez.
“It was a Schengen visa and air ticket,” replied Suso.
“You knew that the defendant had procured visas for people to travel,” Lawyer Gomez put it to Suso.
“I have never seen somebody with a Schengen visa procured by the defendant,” answered Suso.
“You told the court that it was your brother who recommended the defendant to you,” Lawyer Gomez stated.
“Yes,” Suso responded.
“He told you that the defendant can provide visas for people,’ said Lawyer Gomez.
“My brother told me this,” Suso answered.
“This is why you went to him,” Lawyer Gomez stated.
“Yes,” replied Suso.
“Why didn’t you go to Dakar to procure a visa for yourself?” asked Lawyer Gomez.
“When my brother took me to the defendant and said he would procure visa for people, I then went to him,” Suso told the court.
“Would you have gone to him if your brother had told you that the defendant procures British and American visas?” Lawyer Gomez enquired.
“I wanted a Schengen visa,” said Suso.
“You are evading my question,” commented Lawyer Gomez.
“I am not,” Suso replied.
At this juncture, the case was adjourned till 19 December 2013, for the plaintiff to call his witness.
Moses Richards represented the plaintiff.
