Gambia Bar Finals common mistakes
Gambia Bar Finals · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Answering a criminal procedure question by reciting the constitutional fair-trial section and then stopping, without naming the specific statutory step (arrest, caution, remand, disclosure, committal) and its consequence for the evidence.
Candidates memorise the constitutional chapter as a block and treat procedure as a list of rights, so they never link a breach to a remedy such as exclusion of a confessional statement or an acquittal.
What to do instead
For every procedural question, write a three-line skeleton before answering: (1) the power relied on, (2) the statutory or constitutional condition attached to it, (3) the consequence of non-compliance for the accused or for the evidence. Practise on arrest and search scenarios until the skeleton is automatic.
Treating civil procedure as a memory test on Order numbers and missing the jurisdictional threshold question - whether the High Court, a subordinate court, or a tribunal has power to hear the matter at all, and whether limitation has expired.
Revision notes are organised by Order, so candidates learn individual rules in isolation and never build the habit of asking about subject-matter jurisdiction, monetary jurisdiction, and time limits first.
What to do instead
Open every civil procedure answer with a jurisdiction-and-limitation paragraph. Keep a one-page table of the monetary and subject-matter limits of each court and the limitation periods for contract, tort, land, and enforcement of judgment, and rehearse it weekly.
Confusing admissibility with weight: arguing that a document is inadmissible because it is a photocopy, or that a hearsay statement is worthless, instead of identifying the exact exclusionary rule, its recognised exceptions, and the discretionary power to admit.
The law of evidence is learned as slogans ('hearsay is inadmissible', 'best evidence rule'), and candidates do not separate the question 'may the court hear it?' from 'how much does it prove?'.
What to do instead
For each evidence topic build two columns - exclusionary rule and exceptions plus discretion. Then answer in the sequence: relevance, exclusionary rule, exception, weight. Apply it to confessions, hearsay, character, opinion, and documentary evidence in turn.
Describing a company as a separate legal person and then, in the same answer, holding shareholders or directors personally liable without pleading and proving a recognised ground such as fraud, a personal guarantee, or breach of directors' duties.
The separate-personality principle is the first thing taught, so it becomes a reflex; candidates forget it is a presumption that must be displaced through a specific legal route.
What to do instead
Whenever personal liability is at issue, write the words 'the presumption of separate personality is displaced only if...' and then name the ground, the facts supporting it, and the relief sought. Do the same for lifting the veil, wrongful trading, and director liability for insolvent trading.
Answering a contract problem by asserting that a term was incorporated or that a breach was fundamental, without tracing offer, acceptance, consideration, intention, and the effect of any exemption clause step by step against the facts.
Candidates recognise the topic from the facts and jump to the conclusion they remember from a textbook example, skipping the element-by-element analysis the examiner is marking.
What to do instead
Use a fixed checklist for every contract problem - agreement, consideration, intention, certainty, capacity, formalities, terms, vitiating factors, discharge, remedies - and write one sentence per element even where it is uncontroversial. Underline the facts that satisfy or defeat each element.
Writing about land without distinguishing the statutory regime from customary tenure, and drafting or advising on a conveyance without checking title, capacity of the vendor, and the required formalities for validity and registration.
Land law is taught historically, so candidates describe doctrines of tenure but never practise the transactional sequence that a conveyancing question actually tests.
What to do instead
For every land or conveyancing question, run the sequence: identify the tenure and applicable regime, investigate title, verify capacity and any consents, draft the operative words, then complete and register. Keep a checklist of formalities and registration requirements and apply it to a sample deed.
Treating constitutional, administrative, and human rights questions as political commentary - describing what is fair or unjust - instead of identifying the constitutional provision, the ground of judicial review, the remedy, and the procedural route to the court.
These topics invite strong opinions and candidates have read more news than case law, so the answer drifts into advocacy without doctrine or relief.
What to do instead
Structure every such answer as: provision or ground relied on, test applied by the courts, application to the facts, remedy sought, and forum. Memorise the recognised grounds of judicial review and the prerogative remedies, and practise converting a complaint into a pleaded ground.
In family, succession, and personal law questions, applying one system (statutory, Sharia, or customary) to everyone in the problem, rather than determining which system governs each party and each asset - especially in intestacy, marriage, and guardianship.
Candidates revise each system separately and never practise the choice-of-law step, so they miss that the same family may be governed by different regimes for different purposes.
What to do instead
Begin each answer by classifying the parties (marriage type, religion, domicile, legitimacy) and the property (separate, family, or jointly acquired). State which regime applies and why, then apply it. Build a comparison table of the three systems on marriage, divorce, maintenance, guardianship, and intestate shares.
Answering ethics and professional conduct questions with general statements about honesty and integrity, without citing the specific duty, the rule on conflict of interest, confidentiality, client money, or the disciplinary consequence.
The subject feels obvious, so it is under-revised; candidates rely on moral intuition and cannot name the rule or the sanction.
What to do instead
Learn the duties as a numbered list - to the court, to the client, confidentiality, conflict, competence, client account, advertising, and undertakings - and for each, prepare one scenario, one rule, and one consequence. Answer ethics questions in that three-part form.
In drafting and advocacy questions, producing a narrative essay about the dispute rather than the required instrument or submission, and ignoring the formal parts - title, parties, recitals, operative clauses, prayer, signature, and attestation.
Candidates prepare by reading judgments and notes rather than by writing pleadings and letters, so they describe what should happen instead of producing the document.
What to do instead
Practise timed drafting of the core instruments - statement of claim, defence, affidavit, notice, contract clause, will - using a template with every formal part labelled. Then self-mark against the template and rewrite any missing part before moving on.