Para. : “Whereas in the terms of Article 66(2) of the Rules of the Court “The unsuccessful party shall be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings”, it is ripe to adopt same.”
— Oserada v ECOWAS Council of Ministers & Ors. (2008) – ECW/CCJ/JUD/01/08
SHARE ON
60. This Court has severally granted leave for intervention as amicus curiae on the grounds that the said amicus is not a party to the suit and has no proprietary interest in the said claim. The intervention must simply be an objective assistance into the research exercise necessary in the adjudication of the claim/s before the Court. 61. The present applications for leave to intervene as amicus and the submissions by the amici curiae has been considered by this Court and the same is granted.
— SERAP v FRN (2022) – ECW/CCJ/JUD/40/22
Para. 53: “The Court recognizes the principles of Audi alteram partem (hear the other side) which requires that persons affected by an adverse position must be given an opportunity to make representation. The right to be heard by its own nature connotes an opportunity to be heard within a reasonable time by an impartial court or Tribunal. This right is not limited to a one on one verbal representation but encompasses every avenue accorded to a party to be heard in a matter. This Court 18 reiterated the principle that parties must be given an opportunity to be heard in any matter affecting their interest in the following words: “the right to fair hearing is a human right derived from the concept of fair hearing, in this regard, a fair trial is not only seen as an additional instrument for protection of the rights of defence largo sensu…..” See MOHAMMED TAYYIB BAH V. REP OF SIERRA LEONE JUD NO: ECW/CCJ/JUD/11/15, (Unreported) in its consideration relied on the case of Ugokwe v. Okeke (2008), CCJELR pg. 149@ 146.”
— Uuter Dery v Republic of Ghana (2019) – ECW/CCJ/JUD/17/19
Para. 35: “Counsel for the defendant also submitted that the fact that the plaintiff’s brother secured his bail with an expired passport and the fact that plaintiff jumped bail throw the plaintiff’s character into doubt so the court should not believe him. This argument too is untenable. Desperate situations call for desperate measures. Who would not have acted the way the plaintiff did given the situation that he found himself in? Even if he had succeeded in escaping from the National Intelligence Agency detention centre without bail he would have been justified. The court rejects the call to declare the plaintiff as a person of bad character since he was justified in using every reasonable means to secure his freedom and flee for safety.”
— Saidykhan v GAMBIA (2010) – ECW/CCJ/JUD/08/10
Para. 29: “The plaintiff testified on this issue by himself. No witness was called. Before we proceed the court has to state that failure to call a witness does not derogate from the evidence adduced by one person only, nor does it prevent the court from accepting and relying on the evidence of a sole witness. It all depends on credibility and the nature of the evidence adduced. And also as decided in the case of Morrow v. Morrow (1914) 2 I.R. 183 in a civil case where such testimony is unimpeached the court should act on it.”
— Saidykhan v GAMBIA (2010) – ECW/CCJ/JUD/08/10
In the case of Registered Trustees of Association of Former Telecom Employees of Nigeria &17,102 Ors. V. Federal Republic of Nigeria & Ors; ECW/CCJ/JUD/20/19, when this court held that: “It follows therefore that once the claimant makes out a prima facie case of entitlement to pension, by proof of employment but lacks access to the key information needed to substantiate his claim same being in the control of Respondent, such claim cannot fail due to being unsubstantiated. It is a recognized fact that salary records and computations matrix are in the normal cause of events in the custody and preserve of the employer in this case the Respondent. The burden to provide records of the pension entitlement of the Applicant having shifted to the Respondent, the Applicants are exonerated from proving their entitlement.”
In LINDA GOMEZ & 5 ORS V. REPUBLIC OF THE GAMBIA, Suit No. ECW/CCJ/APP/18/12 at paragraph 27, where the Court stated as follows: “It is clear that the Court has neither jurisdiction to annul domestic legislations of ECOWAS Member States nor the jurisdiction to act as appellate Court over their domestic Courts”.
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry