Sarra Jeng was also ordered to pay the sum of D75,000 to the plaintiff, Ebrima Jassey, as damages for breach of contract. The sum of D2750 is to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant as cost of instituting the suit. Sarra Jeng is also to pay 4% statutory interest to the plaintiff from date of judgment until the date of final liquidation of the judgment sum, and the defendant has 7 days to liquidate the judgment sum. The magistrate said she was satisfied that the plaintiff had proved his case on a balance of probability.
In her judgement, the presiding magistrate summarised the evidence of the plaintiff and his witnesses, as well as that of the defendant and an independent witness.
While delivering her judgment, she cited the Evidence Act, 1994, and other authorities to support the judgment.
She further stated that the plaintiff gave the sum of 2 million CFA to the defendant for the purchase of a vehicle, which he never received nor did he receive his money back. She posited that the plaintiff testified that when he reached the defendant’s car park and after a brief discussion, the plaintiff showed the defendant the type of vehicle he wanted. “According to the plaintiff, the defendant promised to call his counterpart to ask if he has the same vehicle. The defendant asked the plaintiff to leave his number with him, which he did. Later in the day, someone sent the defendant pictures of vehicles via WhatsApp,” she stated.
She went on to say that the defendant called the plaintiff to inform him that he gave his number to his nephew who is also his son-in-law, according to the plaintiff. “Not too long thereafter, the defendant sent him the type of vehicle he was looking for and said it was for 1.8 million CFA. The plaintiff said the defendant told him that since it was going to be transported from Spain, and transportation cost inclusive, it could only be sold at 2 million CFA and the defendant requested that the plaintiff send him the money,” she further read the judgment.
Still on the judgment, she noted that the plaintiff agreed to the price of 2 million CFA. However, she added, the plaintiff told the defendant that he was not sending him any money as he does not know the defendant’s nephew. “The plaintiff said if he was to pay for the vehicle, it would be through the defendant and that was what he did. The plaintiff told the court that the defendant assured him that the vehicle would take only four days to arrive in The Gambia. According to the plaintiff, he believed the defendant and counted the money and gave it to his mechanic to counter check before giving it to the defendant,” she further read.
She posited that it was the plaintiff who testified that after receiving the money, the defendant gave it to one Mr. Bouye, at the Western Union. The defendant then gave a number to Mr. Bouye to send the money. The presiding magistrate noted that this evidence of the plaintiff was consistent with the evidence of both PW2 and PW3.
“But the defendant stated that he did not receive monies from the plaintiff. He said that the plaintiff gave the said money directly to Sainey Bouye who sent it to one Masamba,” said the magistrate.
Intelligently, the presiding magistrate went through a flash drive containing audio and video messages whose content was played in court in the presence of the plaintiff and the defendant, and they contained the conversations supporting the assertions of the plaintiff that he gave the money to the defendant.
Read Other Articles In Headlines
