Mar 23, 2020, 11:31 AM
Lawyer Omar Dodou Mbye yesterday opened his defence in a case of conspiracy and obtaining money by false pretence, involving him and one Sulayman Khan at the Kanifing Magistrates’ Court.
Mbye told the court that he was arraigned before the court with the second accused person, charged with conspiracy and obtaining money by false pretence.
He added that there was an agreement with the complainant for the sale of a plot of land situated in Lamin village, adding that the second accused was then the facilitator in the transaction.
Lawyer Mbye noted that the contract was made without his knowledge, adding that while the agreement was going on, the two parties visited the said plot of land.
He further told the court that when the sale price was agreed on, the complainant said that she could not make the payment at once, but she could only pay in installments within six months.
“The complainant started paying the money in installments, but the seller said that he would not accept the money, except in full payment”.That was the reason why he (Mbye) took the money, lawyer Mbye added in his defence.
He said after the completion of the payments, the complainant requested for the title deed, but the seller asked for time to sort out the compound documents, for which he was given over a month for the transaction.
Still testifying, Mbye told the court that, later, the complainant said she was no more interested in the transaction, and demanded for her money.
Mbye further told the court that because the complainant was impatient, he gave the vendor D250, 000.
He added that at that juncture, the matter was then taken to the police station.
Mr. Mbye said he then gave a cheque for D200, 000 to the complainant to meet her demands, which was never presented to the bank, and then later they were brought to the court.
Under cross-examination, when asked his relationship with the second accused person, he replied that he was an agent to him and a businessman, which included sales of land.
When further asked whether the mode of payment was discussed in his office, he said that he did not discuss with them any mode of payment; instead the two parties had discussed that between themselves.
Asked again whether after the completion of the payment, he had issued the title deed to the complainant, he said that she was not given the compound document.
He added that, as a lawyer, he advised the parties not to breach the contract.
When again asked whether he paid the D250, 000 after the withdrawal of the complainant, he replied in the negative.
The prosecutor further asked, when the complainant requested for the money, what he did, and he replied that he first gave them D250 000, and later a cheque for D200, 000 which was not presented to the bank for withdrawal.
At that juncture, two undertaking documents were tendered as exhibits, which contained the payment of D250, 000.
When asked whether he had fulfilled his undertaking, he replied in the negative.
Quizzed again whether he had sufficient account in the bank when he issued a cheque for D200, 000, he replied in the affirmative.
It was put to him that he had no sufficient account at the bank, and that was the reason the said amount was not cashed, but Lawyer Mbye insisted that he had sufficient money in the account, but the cheque was not presented to the bank.
The prosecutor further put it to him that he and the second accused jointly conspired to defraud the complainant, Amie Dukureh. However, Mbye replied in the negative.
When asked why he promised in the undertaking document that he would pay her back the money, he replied that because it was given to him, he had to give back the money.
The case continues.