Whereas the Court of Appeal of Bamako is criticised to have declared inadmissible the intervention as a non-disputing party of the appellant, upholding that she had no legally protected interest nor quality to claim the sum of 10,768,734CFAF invested and included in the succession mass of the deceased Sekou KANTE. Whereas the lack of legal basis sanctions the judge as regards inadequate factual findings necessary to legally justify an upheld solution; whether incomplete or imprecise findings; there is only an incomplete justification for the decision; if the plea is admitted, the Court criticizes the judge to have acted without asserting any element necessary for the legal consistency of reasoning (see Yves Chartier, “La Cour de Cassation, 2nd Edition, Collection connaissance du Droit“, 2001 pages 68 and 69.) Whereas to declare inadmissible the appellant’s intervention as a non-disputing party, the contested judgment states: “Mrs Nientao Assitan DIARRA does not contest the fact that the management of rents of the concession at Torokorobougou was entrusted to her; neither does she contest the fact that she had no other source of income; that under these conditions, it is with rents accruing to the heirs of the deceased Sekou KANTE that she invested to lodge her mother in the concession which does not devolve to them by succession, that Mrs NIENTAO Assitan DIARRA therefore has no legally protected interest nor quality to demand the 10,768,734CFAF invested and included in the succession mass of the late Sekou KANTE; that her application to intervene as a non-disputing party is therefore inadmissible (...) " Whereas the Court of Appeal, by retaining that the appellant invested using the rents realised from the house of the deceased which she was managing; that she had no source of personal income; that she is not an heir to the deceased Sekou Kante, carried out the allegedly omitted fact finding; Whence it follows that the plea is unfounded; FOR THESE REASONS . On the form: Receives the appeal ON THE SUBSTANCE Dismisses it Orders the confiscation of the statutory deposit already paid into Court.