Jan 12, 2012, 2:12 PM
Kalifa Fatty, the plaintiff recently dragged Muhammed Kruma and Tonji Emily, both defendants to court for not honouring their promise to help him to travel to Cyprus after paying them D40, 300.
On 28th January 2010, Senior Magistrate Abdoulie Mbacke of the Kanifing Magistrates' Court entered judgement in favour of the plaintiff after proving his case on the balance of probability.
In his judgement, Magistrate Mbacke stated that the court had carefully considered the evidence given by the plaintiff and his witnesses, as well as that of the first defendant. He stated that the court was of the view that the first defendant was liable to the plaintiff for a lesser amount than he had actually claimed.
Magistrate Mbacke went on to say that all indications were that the first defendant had persuaded the plaintiff to enter into the said transaction, hence he told the plaintiff that he had a brother called Emily, who usually helps people to travel to
He further stated that the first defendant further disclosed that they had assisted a Gambian, called Muhammed to travel to
Still delivering his judgement, the trial Magistrate told the court that when the plaintiff told the first defendant that he was interested in pursuing a course on computer studies and went on to ask the first defendant whether such a course could be pursued in Northern Cyprus. According to the trail Magistrate, the first defendant replied that the guy he took to
He noted that the first defendant urged the plaintiff to telephone his elder brother so that the plaintiff's elder brother could talk to the first defendant to provide the plaintiff with the said amount of Euros.
As result, he added the plaintiff got his brother to communicate with the first defendant over the phone on the said issue, which made the plaintiff's elder brother to send the plaintiff the sum of 1300 Euros which he gave to the first defendant.
According to Magistrate Mbacke, this showed that the plaintiff was lured to enter into the said transaction by the first defendant, and went on to say that the whole transaction was tainted with fraud or deceit. He said the first defendant's failure to produce any witness has made the court to lean more toward the plaintiff and to consider the first defendant's evidence too weak to merit any serious consideration. "No court of law would give any consideration to such misrepresentation," Magistrate Mbacke declared.In view of the foregoing, the court deemed it fit to give judgment in favour of the plaintiff for the sum of D16, 560 and court cost of D350