Abdoulaye Thiam Businessman and Chairman IMMOGAM
By Landing Ceesay
Abdoulaye Thiam’s lawyers began presenting documents in court as evidence in his civil suit against Aisha Fatty.
L.A. Ceesay, the lead counsel for Abdoulaye Thiam, informed the court that they had filed a list of documents on March 6, 2023. He also said that they had filed additional documents, including witness statements from Abdoulaye Thiam, Gibril Faye, Bocarr Dia, Amadou Muctarr Jallow, Yankuba Jallow, Abdul Qudus Jallow, and Momodou Mulie Bah. The writ of summons and statement of claim were also filed.
“”We have also filed an additional list of documents. We also filed witness statements of Abdoulie Thiam (the plaintiff), the witness statements of Gibril Faye, Bocarr Dia, Amadou Muctarr Jallow, Yankuba Jallow, Abdul Qudus Jallow, Momodou Mulie Bah. The writ of summons is also before this court, as well as the statement of claim. My lord, these are the documents the plaintiff intends to rely upon,” Counsel L.A. Ceesay told the court.”
Ceesay said that they would begin presenting the documents listed on the March 6th document, which contains nine documents.
L.S. Camara, who was representing Aisha Fatty (the first defendant), acknowledged receipt of the documents from the plaintiff.
Ceesay said that they also wanted to rely on the additional list of documents, which was filed on June 30th, 2023. He said that he did not know if the defendant would object to it.
In response, Camara said that they would object to all of the documents unless the original copies were produced. He specifically objected to items 1, 2, 4, and 5 of the plaintiff’s list of documents. He did not object to items 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9.
Ceesay then applied to have items 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9 admitted into evidence. Justice Ebrima Jaiteh admitted them into evidence and marked them exhibits P1 to P5, respectively.
Ceesay then applied to have item 1 admitted into evidence. Camara objected, saying that the document was a photocopy and was not admissible in any competent court. He also argued that there was no foundation laid for the document to be admitted into evidence as required by the Evidence Act. He said that the plaintiff had not explained the whereabouts of the original copy of the document.
“My lord, we urge the court to reject the documents and mark them as they are,” Camara submitted.
In response, Ceesay said that the documents were not photocopies but originals. He said that the documents they were seeking to admit into evidence were pleaded in the pleadings by both the plaintiff and the first defendant.
In his ruling, Justice Jaiteh ruled in favor of the plaintiff and against the first defendant. He admitted the documents into evidence, despite admitting that they had slight differences from the original documents earlier tendered by the plaintiff. He said that he could not reject the documents for a mere technicality, as they were relevant to the case.