By Sainabou Sambou
After more than two decades of intense legal wrangling, the High Court in Banjul has delivered a landmark ruling in one of the country’s longest-running property battles, awarding British businessman Simon Segrave Jacques ownership of the Bunkoyo Hotel in Kololi and D500,000 in general damages for his unlawful eviction.
In a detailed judgment delivered by Justice Ebrima Jaiteh, the Court declared that Jacques lawfully acquired the hotel through a Sheriff’s public auction on July 2, 2004, and that his forced removal from the premises nearly a decade later was wrongful and unconstitutional. The ruling brings to a close a complex dispute that has spanned 22 years, involving multiple parties and significant financial stakes in the heart of the Tourism Development Area.
The case was instituted by Ansu Badjie, acting under a power of attorney granted by Jacques, against the Sheriff of The Gambia and Elizabeth Tendeng, who was substituted as defendant following the death of her father, the late Joseph Sarjuka Jobe. Counsel M.A. Samba appeared for the plaintiff, while Counsel E. Darboe held brief for Counsel H.S. Sabally, representing Tendeng and her counterclaim.
According to court evidence, Jacques purchased the Bunkoyo Hotel at the 2004 public auction after it was seized in execution of an earlier judgment against Jobe. He paid D2.2 million, settled all required government taxes, and received both a Certificate of Purchase and a registered Deed of Assignment from the Sheriff’s Office. Jacques subsequently took possession and invested heavily in the property. He cleared outstanding debts, paid taxes and license fees, and employed staff. He began ambitious plans to upgrade the hotel into a five-star boutique establishment to be known as The Barracuda Club Hotel.
However, on April 9, 2014, officers acting under the Sheriff’s authority evicted Jacques pursuant to a writ of possession that the plaintiff argued was never directed at him. The defendants contested the validity of the original Sheriff’s sale, claiming procedural irregularities and arguing that Jacques never obtained lawful title.
Justice Jaiteh, after carefully examining oral testimony, numerous documentary exhibits, and comprehensive written submissions, rejected the defendants’ position. He ruled that the evidence clearly established a valid public auction took place, with Jacques emerging as the highest bidder. The judge noted that Jacques paid the full purchase price, complied with statutory requirements, and received official title documents.
Crucially, the Court found that although the defendants alleged irregularities in the execution process, they failed to produce any court order setting aside the auction or invalidating the Certificate of Purchase and Deed of Assignment. Justice Jaiteh emphasized that mere administrative imperfections could not undo a completed judicial sale, particularly one in which the purchaser had relied on official state processes.
The Sheriff’s Office, despite being served with court processes, neither filed a defense nor called witnesses, leaving the plaintiff’s evidence largely unchallenged. On the question of whether Jacques was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, the judge firmly sided with the plaintiff. He held that Jacques openly participated in a judicial sale, paid valuable consideration, obtained official documents, and occupied the property for nearly ten years, during which he made substantial investments. No credible evidence showed that Jacques had notice of any legal impediments.
Justice Jaiteh underscored the broader public policy implications, warning that if innocent purchasers at judicial sales could lose their property years later due to disputes between judgment creditors and debtors, public confidence in the entire execution process would collapse.
The Court also ruled that Jacques’ 2014 eviction violated his constitutional and proprietary rights. The writ relied upon by the Sheriff was directed at another party, and Jacques was never joined in those proceedings, given notice, or allowed to be heard. “The Plaintiff’s eviction… was wrongful, unlawful, and contrary to the requirements of due process,” the judge declared.
Justice Jaiteh dismissed the second defendant’s counterclaim in its entirety, finding insufficient evidence to prove the sale was void, the title documents invalid, or that any fraud had occurred. He further held that Jacques’ occupation could not constitute trespass since he entered through a lawful judicial sale.
In his final orders, the judge declared Jacques the lawful Owner of Bunkoyo Hotel via the 2004 auction. He ordered the immediate restoration of possession to Jacques, granted a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants or their agents from interfering with his rights except through due legal process, and awarded D500,000 in general damages against the Sheriff for the unlawful eviction. Claims for £100,000 in special damages and D300,000 in legal fees were rejected for lack of strict proof.
The Court additionally awarded D400,000 in costs against the second defendant, with the monetary awards accruing 4 percent annual interest until fully paid.
