The legal battle between the State and Chairman of Brikama Area Council, Yankuba Dabo, resumed in court before a newly appointed Judge.

The case was called up, and Counsel K. Jallow for Yankuba Darboe informed the court that they had filed a Notice of Appeal on August 28, 2023, contesting the ruling made by the Banjul magistrate on August 17, 2023, and an Appeal on October 12, 2023, against the ruling of September 25, 2023. Counsel K. Jallow expressed readiness to proceed with the motion.

However, Counsel Jarju, representing the state, argued that the Notice of Appeal did not contain accompanying rulings being appealed against and therefore should be dismissed. Counsel Jarju contended that the appeal was improper and flawed, stating, “The appeal is improper as it lacked accompanying documents and was flawed beyond repair.”

Another point raised was the absence of the appellant from the court, with Counsel Jarju suggesting that this absence should lead to the dismissal of the appeal. “Since the appellant was not present in court, the appeal should be dismissed,” Counsel Jarju sought.

Counsel K. Jallow objected, saying it did not render the appeal incompetent, and she sought time to come formally. Counsel K. Jallow thereafter made an application for the records to be transmitted from the Banjul Magistrates Court, which the court granted on both appeals.

Counsel K. Jallow opposed the dismissal of an appeal due to the appellant’s absence, stating that the appeal’s legitimacy was not affected. She clarified the difference between a criminal case and an appeal, stating that the appellant’s presence is required in a criminal case but not in an appeal against a lower court’s decision. Counsel Jallow explained efforts made to transmit case records from Banjul Magistrates Court to the High Court.

Counsel K. Jallow explained that the appellant, Yankuba Dabo, is currently serving national duties as the chairman of a council and was only notified of the court session in the morning. She emphasized the importance of upholding the appellant’s rights, as this was the first time the case came before the court.

Counsel Jarju indicated their intention to formally challenge the appeal’s validity after carefully listening to Counsel Jarju’s submission. The presiding judge agreed to allow the state’s counsel to present formal arguments.

Counsel Jallow argued that the court’s focus is on her client’s appeal and that Jarju’s attempt to introduce extraneous matters was unwarranted. She agreed to accept service in court and directed the appellant’s counsel to be served with the motion of notice on February 8, 2024.

Following the receipt of the motion, Counsel Jallow informed the court of the acknowledgment of service and indicated their intent to respond within 48 hours.

The court adjourned further proceedings, scheduling the reply to the notice filed on February 8, 2024, and the hearing on the preliminary objection for February 21, 2024, March 5, 2024, at 1:30 pm.