Court orders defendant to pay businessman over D4M

566

A High Court Judge, Justice Oledi Uko Oduma has ordered one Khadijah Kebbeh to pay back D4, 468, 800 to a UK-based Gambian businessman Laggie Gumaneh.

Last year, Mr Gumaneh sued Muhammed Kebbeh, his company African International Trading and Khadijah Kebbeh to recover D4, 468, 800 he paid to them for 4 containers of 5, 320, 20 litres Jerre Cans of Fleure Vegetable Cooking Oil which has failed.  The businessman also requested for the defendants to pay him D446, 880.00 legal and administrative expenses.

The plaintiff claimed he contracted Mr Kebbeh to purchase the said items that were to be shipped to Dakar port and transited to Banjul port.

ADVERTISEMENT

He said Kebbeh instructed him to deposit the money into Khadijah Kebbeh’s account at GTBank.

The plaintiff’s counsel Moses Richard then filed a jointly and severally suit against the defendants on the 9th of December – meaning each individual named shares responsibility equally.

However, in his submission the defence counsel Sheriff Tambadou told the court that his client has deposed in her Affidavit that she does not know the Plaintiff and doubts if the plaintiff knew her.

He submitted that his client has not denied that money was paid into her account but she has explained the circumstances it was paid.

He said the plaintiff has not exhibited any document to suggest that he has a contract with the 3rd defendant or anybody else.

Counsel Tambadou argued that payment of money into the 3rd defendant account does not establish a contract for the sale and supply of oil. He urged the court to hold that the 3rd Defendant has a good defence to the plaintiff claim.

But reacting to his submission, the plaintiff’s counsel Moses Richard urged the court to put aside the defence arguments and hold that the 3rd defendant has no defence.

Counsel Richard contended that even if the 3rd defendant did not know the plaintiff or otherwise but she admitted that the plaintiff’s money was paid into her bank account. He argued that the 3rd defendant was privy to the contract.

Ruling

In his ruling Justice Uduma said the fact that the 3rd Defendant admitted that the money was sent into her account it is well established that she is privy to the contract and dealings of the parties. Justice Uduma stated that the 3rd Defendant is a constructive Trustee in dealing of 1st and 2nd defendant with the plaintiff.

“The money was paid into her account and she acknowledged and admitted it, except that it was not for her benefits as she stated. Having order 2 rule 9 of the High Court in mind, this court is convinced that the 3rd defendant has no defence to this suit jointly or severally. Therefore, the court will enter judgment in favour of the plaintiff,” he said.

The Judge subsequently ruled that the 3rd defendant is liable and shall pay back to the plaintiff the sum of D4,468, 800 for the consideration which failed, D446, 880.00 being legal and administrative expenses incurred in recovering the debt and D20, 000 general sum.