The Gambia Court of Appeal has reserved its ruling on a motion brought by the Inspector General of Police (IGP) seeking to strike out an appeal filed by Yankuba Darboe after both parties adopted their written briefs of argument before a panel of the court.
The matter is captioned Yankuba Darboe as Appellant/Respondent against the IGP as Respondent/Applicant. The IGP’s motion, dated 4th May 2026, seeks dismissal of Darboe’s appeal on grounds of want of diligent prosecution.
Moving the motion, counsel for the IGP, Counsel Wakawa, formally adopted the State’s brief of argument, which was filed on 26th May 2026, and urged the court to grant all the prayers sought therein.
“The appeal, as it is our contention, has been overtaken. The supposed affidavit letters attached would not have made it to the appeal. On that, we argue the court to hold that the Appellant must be diligent,” Counsel Wakawa submitted.
The IGP’s brief advanced four grounds in support of dismissal: that the appeal has been pending for an inordinate and inexcusable length of time; that the delay is attributable to the deliberate act or inaction of the Appellant; that the IGP has suffered or is likely to suffer prejudice as a result; and that allowing the appeal to continue would not serve the interests of justice. The State argued that all four elements must be established cumulatively and submitted that each had been made out.
Central to the IGP’s argument was the fact that following the filing of the appeal at the High Court, more than nine months elapsed without the record of proceedings being transmitted from the Magistrate’s Court—a delay that had already led the High Court to dismiss the appeal and which now forms part of the subject matter before the Court of Appeal. Relying on the Court of Appeal’s own decision in Babou Cisse v. Eli Osaka (2002–2008) 2 GLR 538, the State submitted that an appellant is required, contemporaneously with or immediately upon filing a notice of appeal, to write to the Registrar of the trial court requesting compilation and transmission of the record. The IGP argued that Darboe’s failure to do so in the requisite manner amounted to an abandonment of his appeal.
Appearing for Yankuba Darboe, Counsel Kaddijatou Jallow of Dandimayo Chambers opposed the motion. She relied on an 18-paragraph affidavit in opposition filed on 10th March 2026, sworn by Catherine Fatty, a clerk of her chambers, and formally adopted the Appellant’s brief of arguments.
Counsel Jallow submitted that striking out the appeal would not serve the best interests of justice. She drew the court’s attention to Rule 16(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, arguing that even where non-compliance is established, the appropriate remedy is to direct the party to remedy the defect—not to dismiss the appeal outright. She also relied on a decision of the Supreme Court of Nigeria delivered on 15th January 2021 in further support of her position, and urged the court to exercise its discretion in favour of the Appellant pursuant to Rule 68 of the Court of Appeal Rules.
In the Appellant’s written brief filed on 19th May 2026, Counsel Jallow argued that the delay in the appeal’s progression was attributable not to Darboe but entirely to an administrative failure of the Court Registry. The brief set out a detailed chronology: that Darboe filed his Notice of Appeal timeously on 25th July 2023; that on 12th August 2023, he filed an application for a stay of proceedings before the Magistrate Court, evidencing active engagement with the appellate process; and that after several oral follow-ups with the Registry produced no results, he wrote two formal letters — dated 11th March 2024 and 4th April 2024 — to the Registrar of the lower court, formally requesting the compilation and transmission of the record.
“Those are not the acts of a party that has abandoned or neglected its appeal,” the brief submitted.
The Appellant’s brief further argued that the duty to transmit the record rests not with the appellant but with the court’s own officers. It cited Order LIII Rule 7 of the High Court Rules, which requires the court below to prepare the record of appeal within fourteen days of entry; Rule 16(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, which places on the Registrar of the court below the duty to summon parties to settle documents; and Rule 19(1), which requires that same Registrar to transmit the record to the Court of Appeal once ready. “These provisions place the duty to summon the parties, settle the records, and effect transmission squarely upon the Registrar of the lower court and not upon the Appellant,” the brief submitted.
On the State’s reliance on Babou Cisse v. Eli Osaka, the Appellant argued that the decision, properly read, does no more than confirm that an appellant should write to the Registrar to initiate the record preparation process — precisely what Darboe did. The brief noted that the court in that case acknowledged that writing serves only to prompt Registry action, with the primary operative duty remaining with the Registrar.
The brief also cited the Supreme Court of Nigeria’s decision in Waziri v. Geidem (2014) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1523) 230, which held that a litigant cannot be sanctioned for a court officer’s non-compliance where the litigant was without fault. It further relied on the Court of Appeal of Nigeria’s ruling in PAM & Anor v. JIBA & Ors (2019) LPELR-48436(CA), which held that appellants cannot be penalised for failures in the compilation and transmission of records by a tribunal secretary.
On constitutional grounds, the brief invoked Section 130(3) of the 1997 Constitution of The Gambia, which guarantees a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal from any judgment or order of the High Court, as well as the Supreme Court of The Gambia’s decision in Jarra v. The State [1997–2001] GR 966, which affirmed that a fundamental right of appeal cannot be extinguished by a failure not examined in light of its circumstances and causes. “The right of appeal belongs to the aggrieved party as of right, and may not be extinguished on account of shortcomings not of his making,” the brief submitted.
At the close of submissions, the President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Sallah-Wadda, confirmed that all briefs before the court were properly filed and indicated that the court would deliver its ruling on Monday, 7th July 2026.
The ruling will determine whether Darboe’s substantive appeal — which challenges the High Court’s finding that he has a case to answer — proceeds to be heard on its merits.
Yankuba Darboe is standing trial before the Magistrate’s Court on a charge of sedition arising from remarks he allegedly made at the Police Headquarters in Banjul during his detention in connection with the 3-Year Jotna protest. The prosecution has since closed its case, and the court called upon Darboe to open his defence. His counsel, however, informed the magistrate that an appeal was pending before the Court of Appeal and urged the lower court to await its outcome before proceeding further.
Darboe had previously made concurrent applications before both the Magistrate’s Court and the High Court seeking a finding of no case to answer and the recusal of the presiding magistrate. Both applications were refused at both levels, and he now brings the same issues before the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal’s forthcoming ruling will therefore carry consequences beyond the appeal itself, bearing directly on whether the trial at the Magistrate’s Court may resume in the interim.
Comments are closed.