Jun 23, 2014, 10:40 AM
One Wally Mahmond Hakim was dragged to the Kanifing Magistrates Court by one Muhammed Moctar Saleni, claiming D70,000 being a rent amount outstanding owed to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff also claimed D18,000 he incurred on rent for the stores, which was taken by way of eviction, among others.
The defendant, Wally Mahmond Hakim, revealed to the court that the plaintiff was a tenant to him and the tenancy agreement was for a year.
He said that some time in December 2008, he entered into a tenancy agreement with the plaintiff for a shop opposite a handicraft in
He added that in January 2009, he had to go to the
He said after his return, the plaintiff came to his compound with someone and they had a conversation for three hours, adding that the person with whom the plaintiff came harassed him, but he then thought the person was drunk, because he was smoking and throwing the cigarette ash on the floor.
Mr Hakim said he then called one Bassirou, his manager, and the cook to come and help him to send the drunker out of his house, due to his negative behaviour, which they did.
He said the plaintiff demanded to be paid half a million dalasi, because he was evicted from the shop in which he was renting by someone while the defendant was away.
He said they gave the plaintiff D70,000 to that effect, which all of them signed.
He asserted that a week later, he realised that his bags of rice had finished too early and then he asked his cook, who told him that three Mauritanians were living in the house who were brought to the house by the plaintiff and that they were fed by the plaintiff.
He added that the plaintiff brought some fridges with their contents and plugged them in his room without Bassirou’s knowledge.
He added that the plaintiff later moved and rented another shop across the street and moved all the equipment to his new shop, saying he then realised that the plaintiff had cheated him, by saying that he had suffered a great loss, as he claimed.
He revealed that he paid a visit to the plaintiff’s shop and found the shop painted with different colours, opened the windows and large doors without his permission, adding that he did not evict the plaintiff and that the plaintiff had no document to prove that he was evicted by the defendant.
The case continues.