Court Orders ORYX Energy to Pay Over D2 Million for Unfair Dismissal of Former IT Manager

The High Court, presided over by Justice Ebrima Jaiteh, has ordered ORYX Energy (Gambia) Limited to pay over D2 million in compensation to its former Information Technology Manager, Momodou Jallow, after ruling that his dismissal was unlawful and unfair.

Delivering judgment, Justice Jaiteh held that the company improperly relied on a contractual termination clause to justify what was, in substance, a disciplinary dismissal. The court found that ORYX Energy failed to comply with the requirements of the Labour Act, 2007, denied the plaintiff a fair process, and demonstrated insensitivity toward his known medical condition.

“The law looks at substance, not mere form. An employer cannot avoid its legal obligations simply by choosing convenient language in a termination letter,” Justice Jaiteh stated.

The ruling is expected to serve as an important precedent in employment law, particularly regarding the misuse of contractual termination clauses in situations involving disciplinary issues or employee health concerns.

Momodou Jallow served as IT Manager from September 2015 under Atlas Energy Limited and continued in the same role without interruption after ORYX Energy took over operations in 2021. His employment was terminated in August 2022.

Following his dismissal, Jallow filed a suit seeking, among other reliefs, a declaration that his termination was unlawful, damages amounting to D7.59 million, payment of outstanding social security and pension contributions, legal costs, and other remedies.

In support of his case, Jallow testified and presented documentary evidence, including performance evaluations, internal communications, medical records, and contractual documents. A second witness, Modou Musa, also testified on his behalf.

Jallow maintained that he had consistently performed at a high level, with evaluation reports showing scores above 90 percent. He further informed the court that he suffers from sickle cell disease, a condition known to his employer, and that all his medical absences were duly certified.

He testified that upon returning from medical leave in August 2022, he discovered that his access to office systems had been revoked, his email disabled, and company equipment recalled before he was summoned to a disciplinary hearing. He was dismissed shortly after the hearing.

Jallow argued that his termination was not a neutral contractual exit but a disciplinary action linked to his health condition, alleged misconduct, and management dissatisfaction, and that the company failed to follow due process under the Labour Act.

ORYX Energy denied wrongdoing, asserting that it acted within the terms of the employment contract, which permitted termination upon notice or payment in lieu of notice. The company relied on Section 55 of the Labour Act, arguing that compliance with contractual terms was sufficient.

The company also cited allegations of absenteeism, insubordination, and poor conduct against Jallow, maintaining that a disciplinary process had been followed.

Justice Jaiteh rejected the company’s arguments, emphasizing that Section 55 does not override the broader requirements of fairness under Sections 83 and 84 of the Labour Act.

He held that any termination must be supported by a valid reason and carried out through a fair procedure. The court found that the reasons advanced by the company—misconduct, absenteeism, and medical absences—were disciplinary in nature, thereby triggering statutory protections.

The judge further ruled that the disciplinary process was fundamentally flawed, noting that key actions taken before the hearing—such as revoking the plaintiff’s access to work systems—demonstrated that the decision to dismiss him had already been made.

Invoking the principle of audi alteram partem (the right to be heard), Justice Jaiteh concluded that the process was procedurally unfair and violated principles of natural justice.

On the issue of Jallow’s medical condition, the court found that his illness played a significant role in the termination. Justice Jaiteh held that the company failed to conduct proper medical assessments or explore reasonable accommodations before taking action.

The court also dismissed the employer’s reliance on allegations of historical misconduct, noting the absence of any formal disciplinary record and the presence of consistently positive performance evaluations.

Applying established legal standards, including the Burchell Test, Justice Jaiteh concluded that ORYX Energy failed to demonstrate a valid reason, reasonable grounds, or a proper investigation.

The court declared Jallow’s dismissal unlawful and unfair.

In awarding damages, Justice Jaiteh considered the plaintiff’s seven years of service, his strong performance record, the flawed termination process, and his medical vulnerability.

The court awarded:

-D1,952,352.72 as compensation equivalent to 24 months’ salary;
-D153,000 for legal and administrative expenses; and
-D100,000 in court costs.

The court also ordered ORYX Energy to reconcile and remit all outstanding social security and pension contributions.

Post-judgment interest was set at 4 percent per annum, while the plaintiff’s claim for 25 percent interest was rejected as excessive.

Justice Jaiteh clarified that any terminal benefits already paid must be deducted from the compensation awarded.

“Payment in lieu of notice may satisfy a contractual obligation, but it cannot cure a dismissal that was unfair and substantively unjustified under the Labour Act,” the judge concluded.

Counsel N.M.C. Cham and M. Roberts represented the plaintiff, while Counsel A.S. Tambadou and I. Jallow appeared for the defendant.