Justice Ebrima Jaiteh ruled that a husband’s sole funding of a property does not defeat a wife’s equitable interest; the husband’s title-document objections were dismissed as misconceived in the matrimonial context.
Justice Jaiteh, today, Thursday, delivered a judgment in Mariama Jammeh v Pa Famara Sanyang declaring that a property at Tujereng acquired during the parties’ marriage is matrimonial property and ordering that both the plaintiff and defendant hold equal, fifty per cent equitable shares in it.
The parties were formerly husband and wife. Their marriage has since been dissolved, and the present civil suit arose out of the plaintiff’s claim to a share in the Tujereng property developed during their union, as well as compensation for alleged financial contributions she made towards the renovation of the Kasumai Park Guesthouse, a separate property associated with the defendant.
Mariama Jammeh, the plaintiff, contended that the Tujereng property was acquired for their joint matrimonial benefit, that she actively participated in its acquisition and development, and that she is accordingly entitled to an equitable share.
She also claimed the sum of D286,000.00 representing monies she alleged were advanced towards the renovation of Kasumai Park Guesthouse, together with D150,000.00 for legal and administrative expenses, and costs.
Pa Famara Sanyang, the defendant, resisted the claim on all fronts. He maintained that the Tujereng property was purchased entirely with his personal funds, that the plaintiff had improperly inserted her name into the title documents without his authority or consent, and that the transfer documents were not properly perfected pointing to alleged defects including the absence of the requisite witnesses’ signatures, lack of endorsement by the Chief Executive Officer of the Area Council and the District Chief, an incomplete sketch plan, and no proof of payment of Capital Gains Tax.
The plaintiff called two witnesses: herself as PW1 and Fatou Ceesay as PW2. Ceesay, who testified that she knew both parties as husband and wife, stated that she had collected monies from both of them and supervised construction at the Tujereng site.
The defendant testified as DW1 and called no other witness. Written addresses were filed and deemed adopted by consent of counsel.
Having considered the pleadings, evidence, exhibits, and final addresses, Justice Jaiteh identified four issues for determination;
1. Whether the Tujereng property constituted matrimonial property within the meaning of Section 43 of the Women’s Act, 2010;
2. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to an equitable share notwithstanding the defendant’s objections to the title documents;
3. Whether the plaintiff proved her monetary claim for D286,000.00 regarding Kasumai Park
4. Whether she was entitled to legal and administrative expenses, costs, and consequential reliefs.
Issue one. Matrimonial property, Justice Jaiteh anchored his analysis in Section 43 of the Women’s Act, 2010, which codifies spousal property rights. Section 43(1) provides that a woman and a man shall have the right to own property individually and jointly.
Section 43(4) goes further, providing that in cases of separation, divorce or annulment of marriage, women and men shall have the right to equitable sharing of the joint property derived from the marriage.
Section 43(5) directs the Court to consider not only direct financial contributions but also property accumulated through the joint industry of husband and wife, contributions made in developing or improving property acquired before marriage, and contributions made by a woman in raising and caring for the family.
Justice Jaiteh emphasised that matrimonial property disputes are not resolved solely by reference to whose name appears on a title deed or who provided the greater share of the purchase money. Equity, Justice Jaiteh held, looks to substance rather than form.
The testimony of PW2 Fatou Ceesay was described as particularly compelling. She stated that both parties contributed funds and were jointly involved in construction, and she identified the property as the shared home of both spouses.
Her evidence was not materially contradicted under cross-examination. The defendant himself, when asked under cross-examination whether the property was intended to be used by both parties, admitted that it was supposed to be a home; an admission Justice Jaiteh found to be highly significant, confirming that the property was conceived not as an exclusive commercial investment but as a family residence intended for their common benefit.
Justice Jaiteh, on a balance of probabilities, held that the Tujereng property was acquired and developed during the subsistence of the marriage for the common benefit of both spouses, that the plaintiff made substantial contributions towards its acquisition and development, and that the property falls squarely within Section 43 of the Women’s Act, 2010. Issue one was resolved in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue two: Equitable share despite title-document Objection, the defendant urged the Court to reject the plaintiff’s claim to any proprietary interest on the ground that the title documents were defective: that the Area Council transfer was not signed by the requisite witnesses, that the Chief Executive Officer of the Area Council and the District Chief did not endorse the transfer, that the sketch plan lacked the necessary endorsements, that there was no proof of Capital Gains Tax payment, and that the defendant himself did not sign the title documents.
The plaintiff herself candidly admitted under cross-examination that the defendant did not personally sign the documents and that she had processed them through one Gibril Sanneh, before later delivering them to the defendant.
Justice Jaiteh acknowledged that in a pure land title dispute, the objections might carry greater weight. However, he held that the defendant’s argument proceeded on a fundamental misconception of the nature of the proceedings.
“This was not a contest between strangers over competing chains of title. It was a matrimonial property dispute between former spouses in which the Court was called upon to determine equitable interests arising from their marital relationship and their respective contributions,” Justice Jaiteh highlighted.
Justice Jaiteh drew on the authority of Njie v. Ceesay (1960–1993) GLR 135, the English House of Lords decisions in Pettitt v Pettitt (1970) AC 777 and Gissing v Gissing (1971) AC 886, the Court of Appeal in Grant v Edwards (1986) Ch 638, Lord Denning’s pronouncement in Eves v Eves (1975) 1 WLR 1338, and the House of Lords restatement in Stack v Dowden (2007) UKHL 17, to affirm that equity recognises beneficial ownership independently of strict legal title and that a party may acquire an equitable interest through contribution, common intention, conduct, or reliance.
The defendant’s credibility was further undermined, Justice Jaiteh noted, by inconsistencies in his own evidence on when and how he first discovered the plaintiff’s name on the documents. Additionally, audio evidence tendered by the plaintiff containing statements attributed to the defendant in which he allegedly instructed her to place her name on the title documents was put to the defendant under cross-examination.
He did not unequivocally deny making those statements, nor did he challenge the authenticity of the recordings. His repeated response was that he could not remember. The Court held that a failure to deny contradicting evidence, in circumstances where a clear denial was available, diminishes the persuasive force of a party’s testimony.
The defendant called no independent witness to corroborate his account. He did not call the Alkalo from whom he claimed to have obtained copies of the documents, did not call Gibril Sanneh, and produced no documentary evidence demonstrating exclusive personal ownership.
Justice Jaiteh found that, on a balance of probabilities, the plaintiff had established an equitable interest in the Tujereng property and that justice and equity required recognition of a one-half beneficial interest. Issue two was resolved in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue three: The Kasumai park claim fails; the claim for D286,000.00 in alleged contributions towards the renovation of Kasumai Park guesthouse did not go well.
Justice Jaiteh held that a claim for a definite sum of money must be strictly proved, and that remittance receipts showing money moved between persons do not, without more, prove that the money was spent on the renovation in question or that the defendant is legally obliged to refund it. PW2 provided some support for the plaintiff in that regard, confirming knowledge of Kasumai Park discussions and some role in renovation arrangements, but also clarified that while Dawda and Samba were at Kasumai, she herself was supervising the Tujereng house.
The Court found that the evidence was less compelling on the property claim and that proof of the amount, purpose, receipt, and benefit had not been adduced with sufficient certainty. Issue three was resolved against the plaintiff.
Issue four: Administrative expenses dismissed. The plaintiff’s claim for D150,000.00 as legal and administrative expenses was also dismissed for want of strict proof. No satisfactory receipt or documentary evidence was placed before the Court showing that this exact sum was paid and that it is recoverable from the defendant.
On costs, Justice Jaiteh exercised its discretion in the plaintiff’s favour on a non-punitive scale. The plaintiff had substantially succeeded on the central issue of matrimonial property and equitable entitlement; the defendant succeeded only in resisting the monetary claims relating to Kasumai Park and legal expenses.
Justice Jaiteh entered judgment as follows:
1. The Tujereng property is declared matrimonial property acquired and developed during the subsistence of the marriage between Mariama Jammeh and Pa Famara Sanyang.
2. Mariama Jammeh is entitled to a 50% equitable interest in the said Tujereng property.
3. Pa Famara Sanyang is entitled to a 50% equitable interest in the said Tujereng property.
4. The parties shall, within ninety days of this judgment, agree on either the sale of the property and equal distribution of the net proceeds, or the valuation of the property and payment by one party to the other of the value of that other party’s 50% equitable share.
5. In default of agreement within ninety days, either party may apply to the Court for consequential orders, including an order for valuation, sale, transfer, or appointment of a court-supervised valuer or receiver.
6. The claim for D286,000.00 in respect of Kasumai Park Guesthouse is dismissed for want of sufficient proof.
7. The claim for D150,000.00 as legal and administrative expenses is dismissed for want of strict proof
