Mar 8, 2010, 12:13 PM
One James Jatta and two others were recently dragged to the Kanifing Magistrates’ Court by one Husaine Aladine.
In his defence, James Jatta told the court that on 12 April 2011, at around noon, the plaintiff, Mr Husaine, came to his shop, greeted him and got into his shop and started pointing at his foodstuffs.
The plaintiff later made a phone call and left, he said, adding that the plaintiff came back to his shop with two CID officers in his absence but met his shop attendant.
“When I came back, I was told by my shop attendant that two CID officers and the plaintiff came but they left a phone number with him,” James told the court.
He said when he called the officers, he was asked to answer to the Kairaba Police Station, which he did, stating that on his arrival to the station, he was asked whether he knew the plaintiff, and he answered in the positive.
He said that by then the other two defendants were still behind bars in the station.
James said he was asked by the police who supplied him the said items which were found in his shop and he replied that the items were supplied to him by the other two defendants.
“I told the police that I never knew that, because the plaintiff usually supplies me with local creams called Ardo, which was not part of the goods,” he said.
He further revealed that a day later, he went to the plaintiff’s shop and told him he was responsible for the management of Bijilo Eden Shop and that he needed some food items if he could supply him some foodstuffs.
“The plaintiff told me that his goods were finished then but was expecting a container in two to three weeks’ time, which he promised to continue to supply me with the cream called Ardo, which they agreed on,” James explained.
He added that one day the first defendant showed him some items in which he was interested and when he brought some samples he chose the ones he was interested in and asked him to supply them to him.
When he brought the items, he and the first defendant made an agreement that he would be paying him every two weeks, and he normally came to collect the cheque to cash them at the bank, he explained, saying that was how the business started.
He added that when the police told him that the said items belonged to the plaintiff, he told them he did not know, because he had been doing business with the plaintiff for a long time.
He revealed that he would not buy the goods from him if he had known they were the plaintiff’s.
At that juncture, he, the plaintiff, the first defendant and three CID officers were asked to go and bring the items to the station and when they brought them to the station, he was asked by the police whether he was satisfied with the items, and he answered in the negative, because three items were there which belonged to him.
He added that when the matter was brought to court, the Magistrate ordered him to go to the complainant’s shop and confirm the goods which were sent there, saying that when they went to check the items, they could not find his items.
The case was then adjourned till 4 January 2012.