Judicial Effects of the Postponement of Judgment in Islamic Jurisprudence and Gambian Law: A Comparative Study

Abstract

This study examines the judicial effects resulting from the postponement of judicial judgments through a comparative analytical study of Islamic jurisprudence and Gambian law. The research is based on the premise that postponing judicial judgments is an integral part of judicial practice in both legal systems and represents a double-edged sword. When exercised wisely and within proper legal limits, it serves as a legitimate means of achieving justice. However, when misused or excessively applied without sufficient justification, it may hinder the realization of rights and undermine justice. The research problem lies in identifying the nature of these judicial effects, classifying them into positive effects that serve the objectives of the judiciary and negative effects that threaten the stability of rights and public confidence in the judicial system, while also examining the position of both Islamic jurisprudence and Gambian law regarding these effects and highlighting the similarities and differences between the two systems. The study adopts the inductive method to collect relevant Islamic legal texts, juristic opinions, and statutory provisions related to the subject. It also employs the analytical method to examine and interpret these materials and the comparative method to evaluate the respective approaches of Islamic jurisprudence and Gambian law toward the judicial effects of postponing judgments. The study concludes that judicial postponement may produce several positive effects, including providing an opportunity for reconciliation between disputing parties, allowing judges sufficient time for careful deliberation and examination of the case, facilitating consultation where necessary, enabling litigants to present evidence and prepare their legal defense, and reducing the likelihood of appeals against judicial decisions. At the same time, the study finds that unjustified or excessive postponement results in significant negative consequences, including increased litigation costs, diminished public confidence in the judiciary, adverse psychological effects on litigants, deterioration of social relationships, the spread of criminal practices, accumulation of pending cases before the courts, frustration of the objectives of litigation, delays in the enforcement of judgments, increased opportunities for corruption and bribery, and prolonged periods of pre-trial detention. The comparative analysis demonstrates that Islamic jurisprudence places great emphasis on the prompt resolution of disputes and minimizing the financial burden on litigants. In contrast, the Gambian judicial system continues to experience procedural delays and frequent unjustified adjournments, despite both systems recognizing the legitimacy of postponement when genuinely required. The study concludes with a number of recommendations aimed at regulating judicial postponement through legislative and procedural safeguards that achieve an appropriate balance between the timely disposal of cases and the realization of justice.