#Article (Archive)

Visa transaction reaches court

Feb 27, 2012, 12:32 PM | Article By: Dawda Faye

The Kanifing Magistrates’ Court on 23 February 2012 heard a visa case involving one Sulayman Drammeh, who sued the defendant, Musa Bayo, for failing to procure Drammeh a visa as promised, even though he had collected money for the service.

He adduced that the defendant met him and they discussed the fee for the visa and a ticket to Indonesia.

The plaintiff said further that they agreed on a fee of D60, 000, and he paid the said amount to the defendant and handed over his passport to him.

Mr. Drammeh also adduced that it was the defendant who transacted the passport for him after paying him D1, 500.

He indicated that he then went to Dakar after he had told the defendant he could inform him if the visa was out.

The defendant later phoned and informed him that the visa was out, he said, adding that he told the defendant that if the visa was not out, he should not phone him.

Still testifying, Drammeh adduced that the defendant told him that the visa was not out and asked him to wait.

He testified that later one Saja Drammeh, who works with the defendant, phoned and told him (the plaintiff) that the visa was out.

He said he came back and asked the defendant to show him the visa but he failed to do so.

The defendant kept on promising him that he would procure the visa for him on several occasions but to no avail.

He said he reported the defendant to the CID who told him the defendant would refund him his money.

He added that the defendant finally procured the visa without the ticket, and the visa became expired.

He further adduced that he went to the defendant’s home and requested for a refund of his money but the defendant’s mother intervened and begged him to be calm and promised that the defendant would pay him his money.

He said again he returned to the defendant’s home in his absence but he had already left D50, 000 for him the plaintiff to collect.

However, the defendant had failed to give him his remaining money, which was why he took the matter to court for redress.

The defendant, on the other hand, is denying that he received the amount of money claimed by the plaintiff.