On Tuesday, November 7, Senior Lawyer Lamin S. Camara raised an objection to the admission of two (2) receipts that the attorney representing Abdoulaye Thiam had submitted.

Aisha Fatty, a businesswoman from the Gambia, and the Inspector General of Police were sued by Senegalese tycoon Abdoulaye Thiam in an attempt to reclaim money and assets, including cars he had given her while their romantic connection was still ongoing.

One hundred thousand euros (€100,000) was the first receipt that Thiam’s attorney submitted, and fifty thousand euros (€50,000) was the second receipt.
Tuesday was the first time the matter was brought back before Hon. Justice Ebrima Jaiteh of the High Court after the summer break.

Informing the court that they had the last and last document on the plaintiff’s list of supplementary papers, which they want to offer, Attorney Lamin A. Ceesay represented Abdoulaye Thiam. According to him, the plaintiff plans to use these papers as support during the trial.

Counsel Lamin Ceesay went on to say that these papers are made up of receipts signed by Aisha Fatty, the first defendant, totaling €100,000 and €50,000.

Aisha Fatty’s attorney, Lamin S. Camara, expressed his disapproval of the document’s acceptance, claiming that there is insufficient proof that Aisha Fatty signed the receipts. Counsel L. Ceesay responded by insisting that Aisha Fatty signed the invoices. Attorney Ceesay also told the court that they had filed a notice requiring the production of the original receipt copies, which were with Aisha Fatty.

In response to the papers that Abdoulaye Thiam’s attorney had requested be submitted, Counsel L.S. Camara said, “I have the notice to produce dated 24th July 2023 issued to her (Aisha Fatty) by United Foreign Exchange Bureau Limited.” These receipts have dates of September 10, 2021, and September 12, 2021, respectively. My lord, according to the law, the individual issued with a notice to produce must provide the documents requested in the notice in order to be tried. The statute under which they are falling under was not specified in the notice to produce dated July 24, 2023. However, the rules governing civil actions specify when to provide notice to present evidence. But, my lord, the law demands that the document being produced be in the ownership or control of the person being offered against.

Attorney Camara directed the court to Section 102 of the Evidence Act, stating that the person to whom the notice was delivered should be the owner or possessor of the document. The original receipts should be with United Foreign Exchange Bureau Limited, not Aisha Fatty, according to Counsel L.S. Camara’s submission.

“My Lord, just because the first defendant (Aisha Fatty) has received the notification does not mean that you may depend on secondary evidence to show the substance of the original. The Bureaus provide you a copy, and they preserve the original receipts. Counsel L.S. Camara said, “We humbly request that this honorable court reject the papers and mark them appropriately.

Counsel Lamin Ceesay responded by saying that Aisha Fatty and AbdoulayeThiam have a shared grievance over the €100,000 and €50,000 that were handed to her. In her statement of defense, Aisha Fatty states that she has previously recognized and accepted the €150,000. He pointed the court to paragraphs 29, 30, and 31 of her statement.

Attorney Ceesay emphasized that Aisha Fatty signed the receipts and did not dispute receiving the money.

“My Lord, we fully disagree with the Counsel’s suggestion that you get a copy rather than the original when you receive money. There is nowhere in the world where it occurs. Counsel L. Ceesay contended that the first defendant, Aisha Fatty, signed the document and did not dispute receiving the money.

Counsel Ceesay clarified that the purpose of the notice to produce is only to notify the other party that they are in possession of an item that has to be turned over to the court. He said that it just notifies the first defendant that the receipt is needed, not that she must bring the item to court. Counsel Ceesay supported his position by referring the court to pages 175–176 of the Hon. Chief Justice Hassan B. Jallow’s Law of Evidence.

In response, Attorney L.S. Camara said that the legal authority that his esteemed friend, Counsel Lamin-Ceesay, had given were not relevant to their case. He maintained that any documentary evidence submitted must nonetheless fulfill the admission standards, regardless of whether the facts are allowed.

Judge Jaiteh, the presiding judge, postponed making a decision on the case until November 14, 2023.