Jul 8, 2013, 11:17 AM
Magistrate Tabally of the Kanifing Magistrates’ Court on 5 January 2015 entered judgment in favour of one Fabakary Kanagi, who sued one Sheikh Faal for his failure to procure a visa for him after paying him the sum of D47,500.
When the plaintiff, Fabakary Kanagi, gave his evidence, he told the court that in September 2012 he contracted the defendant to secure a Turkish visa for him.
He said the defendant agreed and demanded D65,000, adding that he paid D47,500 based on the agreement between them.
Mr Kanagi added that he collected his passport from the defendant with a purported visa.
He further testified that the defendant offered him, and he agreed for the defendant to procure an Italian transit visa, for a fee of D4,000.
He paid D4,000 to the defendant as agreed, and handed over his passport to him.
Two weeks later, the defendant informed him that the visa was ready, but a business partner of the defendant in Senegal was demanding a further D15,000, which had to be paid before his passport would be released.
The defendant later received the said sum of D15,000 from him in the presence of his (the plaintiff’s) sister.
The defendant promised to pick him for them to go and collect his passport, but did not show up and had not been seen since then.
One Fatoumata Kanagi and Nyima Kanagi also testified on his behalf.
Both of them gave evidence about the payment of monies to the defendants for the purpose of procuring a visa for the plaintiff.
In his defence, the defendant told the court he was introduced to the plaintiff by a friend called Bass, adding that they discussed for him to procure a visa for Turkey.
He only collected the plaintiff’s passport and four passport-size photos of the plaintiff, and it was agreed that the plaintiff would pay him only after he got the visa.
He did receive the visa fee, but did not state how much.
He further told the court that he applied for, and the visa was issued for the plaintiff in Dakar.
He received the plaintiff’s passport with the visa, and handed it to the plaintiff in the presence of the plaintiff’s sister.
The plaintiff later returned the passport to him, and they met the following day to discuss the issue of how the plaintiff would pay the agreed sum of D65,000.
He further stated that he only received from the plaintiff the sum of D2, 000 as visa fee and another sum of D700 which was a gift by the plaintiff.
He denied receiving the sum being claimed.
The plaintiff, Fabakary Kanagi, claimed for the recovery of the sum of D47, 500.
He also claimed cost of D2, 500, interest of 25 per cent from 2012 to date of judgment, damages of D20, 000 and an order for the defendant to return the plaintiff’s Gambian passport.
In his judgment, Magistrate Tabally told the court that it was clear to him that there existed a valid contract between the plaintiff and the defendant to procure a Turkish visa for the plaintiff for a fee.
He said this fact had not been contraverted in any way, adding that the defendant denied receiving the sum being claimed.
The magistrate further stated that the evidence of the defendant was that it was a term of the contract, that the plaintiff was to receive his passport with the visa only after payment of the fees agreed. It was curious that the defendant alleged that he had handed over the plaintiff’s passport to him, but that he had not received the fees agreed, the magistrate continued.
He said he did not believe the evidence of the defendant.
He subsequently entered judgment for the plaintiff as follows: The sum of D47, 500, cost of D2, 000, interest of 20 per cent from September 2012 to date of judgment and damages of D10, 000.