whose operative parts read as follows
“Ruling in public, in the presence of both parties, in a civil proceeding
and at first instance:
AS CONCERNS PROCEDURAL MATTERS : Declares the objection, of
Madame Madio NIARE and Madame Fanla TOURE admissible .
AS CONCERNS THE MERITS: Confirms the default judgement handed
down on 17 December 1987 by this Civil Court (No. 392),
Orders the appellant to pay costs”:
As a result of this document, the Bamako Court of Appeal
handed down on 30 April 1992 Ruling No. 171 whose operative parts read
as follows:
“Ruling in public, in the presence of both parties, in a succession proceeding
and
as the court of last resort:
AS CONCERNS PROCEDURAL MATTERS: Declares the appeal
admissible .
AS CONCERNS THE MERITS: Confirms the portion of the appealed ruling
ordering sharing in accordance with Muslim law
with all the aspects contained therein: however overturns the portion of the ruling
regarding the amount for rents collected:
Ruling anew on this point and changing the amount, sets the amount for the said rents
at
CFAF 4,222,000 plus CFAF350,000, representing a total of CFAF 4,472,000
: orders that it should be shared: Orders the appellants to pay costs”.
Through a document filed at the Registry on 02 March 1992, Barrister
Mamadou
DAFFE, Attorney, acting on behalf of and for the heirs of
late Gaoussou DRAME, declared that he will appeal against this
judgement;
As a result of this appeal, the Supreme Court of Mali
( Judicial Chamber) handed down on 19 July Judgement No. 114 whose operative
parts read as follows:
As concerns procedural matters: Declares the appeal admissible;
As concerns the merits : Quashes and cancels the appealed decision;
Sends the case and parties back to the Bamako Court of Appeal,
with a different composition
Orders that the deposit fine should be returned
Orders the State Treasury to pay for costs."
Based on this document, the case was registered in the general list of cases
scheduled at the court's registry for hearing as No. 684 in 1993,
Called up for the hearing of 19 January, 1994, it was
successively postponed to 22 February, 1994. to file and exchange
submissions, on 16 March 1994 to duly compose the
Court, to 6 April 1994 on the same grounds , on this date, the case
was scheduled for deliberation on 8 June 1994 : when this date arrived, the
deliberation was reopened for the court to be constituted once again and
the case was postponed to 15 June 1994 for this purpose and scheduled for
deliberation
on this date on 14 September 1994 before the deliberation was extended to 28
September 1994; on this date the deliberation was reopened and an order given to
reopen proceedings for an investigation to determine the amounts for rents