By Landing Ceesay
L.S. Camara, counsel representing Aisha Fatty as the first respondent, objected to the alleged receipts of gold purchase presented by Abdoulaye Thiam, the claimant.
In response, L.A. Ceesay, the chief counsel for Abdoulaye Thiam, expressed their intention to submit document number 4 and 5 from the claimant’s list of documents to the court.
“The documents are in French, but the English versions are pleaded and are in the additional list of documents number 1 and 2. Document number 4 is a receipt of a gold purchase from a shop. Document number 5 also is a receipt of gold purchase from another shop,” Counsel Lamin A. Ceesay informed the court.
Justice Jaiteh asked Counsel Camara, who was representing the first defendant, Aisha Fatty, if he had any objections to the documents that the plaintiff’s counsel intended to submit. Counsel Camara responded that he objected to the admissibility of the documents.
“My lord, we are objecting to the admissibility of these documents because both are in French. What is pleaded in the statement of claim and also listed in the plaintiff’s documents before this honourable court is the receipt of the purchase of gold handed over to the 1st Defendant (Aisha Fatty). What is sought to be tendered is a computation of what appeared to be receipts. But they are not receipts, my lord,” Counsel L. S Camara told the court.
Counsel Camara argued that the documents in question are not receipts because they do not contain any of the usual features of a receipt, such as a signature or stamp. Instead, he said, the documents are clearly computer-printed records of the alleged purchase of gold, which were fed into a computer and printed on white paper.
“My lord, there is no signature on these purported receipts. There are absolutely no stamps on these purported receipts. My lord, from page 2 of document number 4 all the way to page 20, there is not a single signature or stamp on them. “These documents being tendered as receipts are photocopies allegedly coming from these shops for items as expensive as gold, and there is not a single signature or stamp on them,” Counsel Camara argued.
Counsel Camara submitted that pages of document number 5 are a computation of the entire purchase of gold made in August 2021. He argued that these documents are not listed in the plaintiff’s list of documents, and that the last 3 pages of document number 5 are also photocopies of a list of gold purchases allegedly coming from a shop, which is not pleaded or listed in the list of documents. Counsel Camara further argued that document number 4, page 1, is neither a receipt nor any other document pleaded in the plaintiff’s statement of claim.
“It contains a list of alleged purchases by the plaintiff, and the document is not admissible because it is neither pleaded nor listed in the documents. Most importantly, my lord, just like the first 3 pages of document number 5, the document is fed into a computer. My lord, this brings me to documents number 1 and 2, the purported translations.
“My lord, the translations in documents 1 and 2 of the additional list from French to English. They have to be translated into the language of the court. We have what looks like a translation before the court. I enjoin my lord, to go through all pages of the documents. There is no stamp or signature of the alleged translator of the documents. This court is invited to check on a document whose origin is questionable and unknown,” Counsel Camara argued. Counsel Camara requested that the translator of the witness statements submit to a veracity test, also known as cross-examination. He argued that the translator had not certified any of the translated versions of documents 4 and 5, and that both documents and their translated versions were computer generated. He further argued that the documents were not original receipts issued by the shops from which the gold was bought, as they were clearly prepared on a computer.
“My lord, for these documents to be admissible, that is assuming without conceding that they have met the objection I have already made. They have got to comply with section 22 of the Evidence Act. Being computer generated and that processing taking place, they ought to be attached with a certificate.
“The certificate of compliance with section 22 of the Evidence Act, Is the certificate of the identity of the translator where it was translated, his or her profession, stamp, and signature. It is only document number 1 and 2 on the additional list of documents that can render document number 4 and 5 admissible. Having regard to these serious omissions on documents number 1 and 2, none of documents 4 and 5, are admissible,” he argued.
The case was at this point adjourned by Justice Ebrima Jaiteh to July 19th and 20th for ruling.
Aisha Fatty, a Gambian socialite has been sued by his ex-finance Abdoulaye Thiam, (Plaintiff) a Senegalese business tycoon for allegedly breaching a marriage promise.
The Senegalese Business tycoon also sued the Inspector General of Police, Abdoulie Sanyang, who is the 2nd defendant in the civil suit.
The most talked about Civil suit was mentioned in court for the first time in April 2023 before Justice Ebrima Jaiteh of the High Court of the Gambia.