High Court Rejects Boissey’s Joint Tourism Boat Ownership Claim, Rules in Favor of Dixon

The High Court has ruled in favour of British national Julie Elizabeth Dixon in a civil dispute over ownership of two wooden boats, rejecting Emile Boissey’s counterclaim to joint ownership and awarding Dixon full legal rights and damages.

In a judgment delivered by Justice Ebrima Jaiteh on July 2, the Court declared Dixon the sole legal owner of the wooden boats “ELIZABETH” (now destroyed) and “JULIE,” and awarded her D150,000 in legal and administrative costs. Boissey’s claim to a 50% share in the business was dismissed in full.

Dixon, who first visited The Gambia in 2019 and returned the following year to establish a tourism business, told the Court she met Boissey through a mutual friend, Michelle Bah. She alleged that while he offered assistance in navigating local logistics, she was solely responsible for financing the purchase and construction of both boats.

According to her testimony, Dixon paid D450,000 in February 2022 for the first boat, “ELIZABETH,” with no financial contribution from Boissey. His name appeared on some receipts solely to facilitate dealings with the Denton Bridge Boat Association, owing to his local presence.

Dixon further testified that during their relationship, she covered a range of Boissey’s personal expenses—including his child’s school fees, driving lessons, gym membership, iPhone 13 Pro Max, phone credits, and even his divorce proceedings. After “ELIZABETH” was destroyed by fire, she independently financed the construction of the second boat, “JULIE.”

In his defence and counterclaim, Boissey argued that there was an oral agreement for joint ownership, citing his operational involvement and personal efforts. He also claimed to have purchased equipment, paid for boat parking and taxes, and provided essential logistical support. Boissey contended that the business name “Boissey Boat” signified their shared ownership and sought 50% of the business’s value.

However, the Court found these claims unsubstantiated. Justice Jaiteh ruled that Boissey provided no credible documentary evidence of financial input toward the acquisition or construction of the boats. The Judge cited legal precedents, including Momodou Jallow v. Mariama Jallow [2013] GMCA 2, emphasising that the mere appearance of a name on documentation does not establish ownership absent financial contribution or a formal agreement.

A WhatsApp message submitted as Exhibit “DC-JED1” proved pivotal, showing Boissey explicitly acknowledging Dixon as the owner of the boat. Justice Jaiteh considered this message an unequivocal admission against Boissey’s interest.

The Court further held that Boissey’s contribution of “time and energy” did not equate to legal ownership, referencing Stack v. Dowden [2007] UKHL 17 and Pettkus v. Becker [1980] 2 SCR 834, both of which underscore the necessity of a common intention and detrimental reliance for claims of beneficial interest.

Justice Jaiteh concluded that Boissey orchestrated a “pattern of deception,” benefiting personally and financially from Dixon’s generosity while presenting himself as a co-owner without providing any capital investment. The use of the business name “Boissey Boat” was deemed a “vanity exercise,” with no evidence of joint registration or consent from Dixon.

In addition to confirming Dixon’s sole ownership of both boats, the Court issued a perpetual injunction restraining Boissey from using the name “Boissey Boat” or claiming any interest in Dixon’s enterprise. He was further ordered to pay D50,000 in costs.