by Assitan DIARRA of a value of10,768,734 CFAF devolve to the mother; stated that the rest,
that is, the realisations made by the deceased of a value of 5,363,543CFAF plus the value of the
land, totalling 6,675,945CFAF, will be shared between the heirs.
By Judgment No.738 of 23rd December 2009, the Appeal Court of Bamako upheld the judgment
appealed against in its provisions on the determination of the succession mass; declared
inadmissible the application of Mrs Nientao Assitan DIARRA to intervene into the proceedings
as a non-disputing party, and appointed Maitre Kanda KEITA, Notary in Bamako, to execute the
sharing of the succession mass. This judgment is the business of this Court
Brief summary of the grounds of appeal
In support of her application, the appellant alleges infringement of the law by erroneous
description of the facts (1) and the lack of legal basis (2)
1. Plea alleging infringement of the law by erroneous description of the facts.
By this plea, the appellant challenges the decision to the Court of Appeal on grounds that it
declared her application to intervene as a non-disputing party inadmissible, thus in violation of
Article 12 of the Social, Commercial and Civil Procedure Code (CPCCS); whereas according to
the appeal, the annual rent of 360,000CFAF cannot be used to construct, from cement, a house
which was built from mud and up to 10,768,734CFAF; that the challenged decision is in
violation of Article 12 of CPCCS due to erroneous description of the facts, and merits the
censure of the Supreme Court.
2.-Plea alleging lack of legal basis
The appellant challenges the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Bamako on grounds that it
declared inadmissible its intervention as a non-disputing party; that she has neither a protected
legal interest nor quality to claim 10,768,734CFAF invested and included in the succession mass
of the deceased Sekou Kante; whereas, according to the plea, the appellant is the uterine sister of
the heirs and has invested in the house with their informed consent so that the whole family
could live there comfortably; whereas she requested to intervene as a non-disputing party on
grounds that her rights may be affected by the division of the succession mass; that the Court of
Appeal ruled without stating a legal basis for its decision, and consequently this must be
censored;
In his defence statement of 2nd June, 2011, Bakary KANTE pleaded that the Court should
dismiss the appeal.
THEREUPON: