By Sainabou Sambou
The High Court in Banjul has declared a property acquired and developed in Tujereng during the marriage of Mariama Jammeh and Pa Famara Sanyang as joint matrimonial property, entitling each former spouse to a 50 percent share.
Justice Ebrima Jaiteh delivered the judgment today in open court, though both parties were absent. Counsel A.J. Banguara represented plaintiff Mariama Jammeh, while Counsel U. Achigbue appeared for defendant Pa Famara Sanyang.
The dispute arose following the breakdown of the couple’s marriage, centering on proprietary and equitable rights over assets acquired during their union. Mariama Jammeh had argued that the Tujereng property was purchased and developed while the marriage subsisted, intended as their matrimonial home and a shared investment. She claimed financial contributions toward its acquisition and development and sought recognition of her equitable interest.
In her suit, Jammeh also claimed D1,517,500, representing half the alleged value of the Tujereng property; D286,000 allegedly advanced for renovations at Kasumai Park Guesthouse; D150,000 in legal and administrative expenses; and costs and other reliefs.
Pa Famara Sanyang strongly opposed the claims. He maintained that he solely financed the Tujereng property and never authorized his ex-wife to include her name on the title documents. He further denied any liability for the alleged expenditure on the Kasumai Park Guesthouse.
During the trial, Mariama Jammeh testified as PW1 and called Fatou Ceesay as PW2. Ceesay, a key witness, told the court she knew the couple as husband and wife and had collected money from both parties for the Tujereng project. She supervised aspects of the construction on their behalf and regarded the house as jointly owned by both spouses. Her evidence withstood cross-examination and was not materially contradicted.
After the plaintiff closed her case, Sanyang testified as DW1 without calling additional witnesses. Written addresses were adopted by consent.
Justice Jaiteh framed four core issues for determination: whether the Tujereng property qualified as matrimonial property under Section 43 of the Women’s Act 2010; whether Jammeh was entitled to an equitable share despite objections over title documents; whether she proved her D286,000 claim for Kasumai Park; and her entitlement to legal expenses and other reliefs.
In a detailed ruling, the judge examined Section 43 of the Women’s Act, which guarantees spouses the right to own property individually or jointly and provides for equitable sharing upon separation or divorce. The law, he noted, recognizes not only direct financial contributions but also indirect ones such as managerial efforts, supervision, domestic labour, and family support.
“Marriages function as economic partnerships in which each spouse contributes in different but equally valuable ways,” Justice Jaiteh held. He attached significant weight to Fatou Ceesay’s compelling testimony, which confirmed joint involvement in the construction.
The court also noted Sanyang’s admission under cross-examination that the property “was supposed to be a home” for both upon their return to The Gambia. This bolstered the view that the asset was intended for their common benefit.
Defence counsel raised several technical objections to the title documents, including missing signatures, lack of endorsements by the Area Council CEO and District Chief, and absence of Capital Gains Tax evidence. Sanyang himself had not signed the documents, it was argued.
However, Justice Jaiteh ruled that while such defects might affect strict legal title, they did not defeat Jammeh’s equitable interest in a matrimonial context. “The real issue is whether the evidence establishes that the property was acquired, developed, and treated by the parties as a matrimonial asset,” he stated.
The judge highlighted inconsistencies in Sanyang’s account of when he discovered his ex-wife’s name on the documents. He also noted that audio recordings tendered by the plaintiff, in which Sanyang allegedly instructed inclusion of her name, were neither denied nor authenticated nor challenged by the defendant. Instead, Sanyang repeatedly claimed he could not remember.
Sanyang failed to call independent witnesses, such as the Alkalo, Gibril Sanneh, or Area Council officials, to support his claims of unauthorized inclusion.
Having weighed the evidence, Justice Jaiteh declared the Tujereng property matrimonial property acquired during the marriage. He awarded Mariama Jammeh a 50 percent equitable interest and Pa Famara Sanyang the remaining 50 percent. The parties have 90 days to sell the property and divide the proceeds equally, or to arrange a valuation and compensation. Failure to agree allows either party to seek further court orders.
The court, however, dismissed the D286,000 claim for Kasumai Park renovations, ruling that evidence was insufficient despite discussions confirmed by Ceesay. Strict proof is required for specific monetary claims. The D150,000 for legal expenses was similarly rejected for lack of receipts.
Though Jammeh did not succeed on all claims, Justice Jaiteh found she had substantially won on the central issue and ordered Sanyang to pay her D50,000 in costs.
The judgment reinforces the protective intent of the Women’s Act 2010, affirming that matrimonial property disputes must consider the holistic contributions of spouses rather than technical title formalities alone.
