On Thursday, December 6 at the Banjul High Court, a high profile case was mentioned before Justice Ikpala. The case involves Mr Lamin Sillah, a young Gambian who has sued the Oceanic Bank Gambia Limited.
The first defendant in the matter is Oceanic Bank Gambia Ltd,
second defendant is Ebrima Sanyang (aka Pa Ebou) and the third defendant is Sheriff of the High Court of the Gambia. Lamin Sillah had taken a loan from the bank
Mr Sillah, the proprietor of Chosan Bar and Restaurant at the Senegambia area in Kololi was offered a banking facility of D5,000,000 by the Oceanic Bank which soon went into liquidation. A dispute arose regarding the repayment of the loan. Mr Sillah and his company were sued and judgment was entered for his restaurant to be auctioned.
Subsequent to this he proceeded to seek an order from the court setting aside the judgment ordering the auction for lack of jurisdiction; a declaration that the sale of Mr Sillah's restaurant by the Sheriff of the High Court to Ebrima Sanyang (second defendant) is a wrongful deprivation of Mr Sillah of his property, unconstitutional, null and void. Mr Sillah is therefore asking for the court to set aside the purported sale of the restaurant award damages for "the wrongful closure of the plaintiff's business premises..."
When the case was called at the high court, the plaintiff Lamin Sillah was present in court and the representatives of the first defendant was also seen in court. Mrs. A.A. Ceesay held brief for L. Farage the counsel for the plaintiff. CE Mene announced his presence for the first defendant and was quick to tell the court that the other defendants have not been served yet.
Justice Ikpala at this stage asked CE Mene why the other defendants are not served while they are appearing before him.
At this stage, the judge said he wants to check his records and see who is served and who is not. CE Mene said this case was once prosecuted and told the court that the first defendant is a company.
AA Ceesay who held brief for L. Farage also stood and informed the court that service should be effected to the defendants. She said she is not familiar with the case and that they need to advice themselves (the two counsels) on the matter.
At this stage, Justice Ikpala stated that there is no proof in his records that the other defendants were served. He ruled that the other defendants should be served and subsequently adjourned the case till January 10, 2013.