High Court Rejects Procedural Motion in Gach Global Dispute, Orders Defendant to Open Defense

The High Court of The Gambia on Wednesday dismissed a procedural application by the second defendant in a civil dispute involving Gach Global Trading Company, ruling that the motion lacked a clear legal basis and could not be entertained after pre-trial proceedings had concluded.

Presiding over the matter, Justice Ebrima Jaiteh rejected a motion filed by the second defendant, Saikou Drammeh, who had sought permission to submit an additional list of documents in the ongoing suit brought by Gach Global Trading Company.

Lawyers I. Drammeh and A. Tambedou appeared for the plaintiff, while K. Jallow and B.S. Conteh represented the defendants, Khadijatou Kebbeh and Drammeh.

At the start of proceedings, Mr. Conteh informed the court of a motion moved by counsel Akimbo on behalf of the second defendant. Although lawyers for both sides acknowledged receiving the application, Justice Jaiteh noted that the court itself had not yet received a copy.

In presenting the motion, counsel said the second defendant sought leave to file an additional list of witnesses, supported by a 13-paragraph affidavit. The judge, however, pressed counsel to identify the legal rule or statutory authority under which the application had been brought.

“I don’t sit here to make decisions without relying on the law,” Justice Jaiteh said. “It’s the law that guides my decision.”

When counsel was unable to point to a specific legal provision, he sought permission to withdraw the motion and refile it at a later date. Lawyers for the plaintiff objected, urging the court instead to rule on the application.

In his decision, Justice Jaiteh said the request could not stand.

“The applicant failed to disclose the legal basis of the application,” the judge said, noting that pleadings in the case had long been closed and pre-trial procedures completed. “The court cannot exercise discretion in a vacuum.”

Citing the appellate decision in Thelma Bolane Fowlis v. Joseph Joof, Justice Jaiteh added that allowing parties to correct procedural defects after arguments had begun would undermine the finality and discipline of court proceedings.

“Once an application has been formally moved,” he said, “the court is duty-bound to determine it definitively.”

The judge dismissed the motion and ordered the second defendant to proceed immediately with his defense.

Mr. Drammeh then took the witness stand. A petroleum engineer and resident of Brufut, he testified in English after swearing on the Qur’an. His lawyer applied for his written affidavit of testimony, dated June 2022, to be adopted as his evidence-in-chief, a request the court granted without objection.

In his statement, Drammeh disputed several claims made by the plaintiff. He testified that the managing office of Gach Global was located at Fatou Golden Plaza, not at 78 Hagan Street as alleged, and asserted that the company’s license did not authorize it to export petroleum products.

Drammeh said he had been informed that Gach Global had secured a contract to supply fuel to the Gambia National Petroleum Corporation. At the time, he said, he was serving as general manager of Gam Petroleum.

According to his testimony, he agreed to allow Gach Global to uplift fuel on a “negative balance,” based on an understanding that the product would be replaced “litre for litre” once an anticipated shipment of 25,000 metric tons arrived.

The company was listed as a debtor only after the shipment failed to materialize and the fuel taken on credit was not replenished, he said.

Drammeh also denied allegations that he personally received payments connected to the transaction. He rejected claims that $221,000 had been paid to him or to Gam Petroleum by the first defendant, Ms. Kebbeh.

He further challenged references to a third party identified as “Kuringo,” saying he did not know the individual and that WhatsApp messages attributed to him were not authentic. Claims that he confirmed receiving money from the plaintiff’s witness, he said, were “absolute falsehoods.”

Drammeh maintained that his department kept accurate records of all fuel uplifts made by the petroleum corporation at the request of the plaintiff and said he had never been arrested or detained in connection with the allegations.

He described the plaintiff’s witness statement as “replete with outright falsehoods, concoctions and fabrications.”

Cross-examination is expected to continue when the case resumes.