Aisha Fatty opposes the motion to summon her former friend, Aji Fama Taal-Gaye, to testify in the lawsuit filed against her by Abdoulaye Thiam, her ex. Aisha Fatty questions the credibility of Aji Fama’s testimony and raises doubts about her motives for wanting to testify.
During the previous hearing, counsel Lamin Ceesay informed the court that Abdoulaye Thiam had filed a Notice of Motion to seek an order for Aji Fama Taal-Gaye to testify in the lawsuit. The motion, filed under Order XXIII (7) of the High Court (Amendment Rules) 2013, highlights Aji Fama’s importance as a witness and her possession of relevant information regarding the case.
According to the affidavit, Aji Fama Taal-Gaye, a legal practitioner and a friend of Aisha Fatty, is believed to have pertinent information about the case. It is alleged that Aji Fama purchased some disputed gold from Aisha Fatty and still possesses it. The affidavit emphasizes the necessity and significance of Aji Fama’s testimony in resolving the issues at hand, stating that summoning her would serve the interests of justice.
In her opposing affidavit, Aisha Fatty asserts that as the first defendant/respondent, she knows the facts related to the case. While she does not deny or admit certain paragraphs of the affidavit due to her limited knowledge, she either admits or denies others, stressing that the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff.
The affidavit challenges the credibility of Aji Fama Taal-Gaye’s testimony by highlighting the strained relationship between Aisha Fatty and Aji Fama. It states that their relationship deteriorated months before the case was filed, suggesting that Aji Fama’s motive for testifying is purely personal.
Furthermore, Aisha Fatty denies her involvement in the gold business and claims that she only sold her personal gold chain and earrings to Aji Fama upon repeated requests for her naming ceremony. She questions Aji Fama’s knowledge of the origin of the gold and suggests that personal issues may have influenced her judgment.
Aisha Fatty argues that Aji Fama’s testimony would not contribute to resolving the issues due to their severed relationship and raises concerns about potential bias on Aji Fama’s part. The affidavit also points out that the application lacks validity as the summons mentioned in the motion has not been attached to the application served on Aisha Fatty’s counsel.
Aisha Fatty and her counsel contend that granting the application to summon Aji Fama Taal-Gaye would be against the interests of justice. They argue that the application lacks merit as it fails to include the proposed Affidavit of Witness Statement by Aji Fama. Granting the application, they believe, would cause significant prejudice to Aisha Fatty’s case.
To summarize, Aisha Fatty’s opposing affidavit challenges the claims made by Abdoulaye Cham (the plaintiff) regarding the testimony of Aji Fama Taal-Gaye. It aims to establish the lack of credibility and potential bias in Aji Fama’s involvement as a witness in the case.
Now, the court will consider the arguments presented to determine whether or not to allow Aji Fama to testify.
