High Court Dismisses Bankai International’s Lawsuit Against GAMTEL Over Jurisdiction and Breach of Contract Terms

The High Court of The Gambia has struck out a $2.94 million lawsuit filed by Bankai International Private Ltd. against the Gambia Telecommunications Company Limited (GAMTEL), citing lack of jurisdiction and serious contractual breaches by the plaintiff.

Presiding over the case, Justice Ebrima Jaiteh ruled that the dispute fell outside the Court’s authority due to a binding arbitration clause in the contract between the parties, and further found the plaintiff’s claim legally flawed, particularly regarding interest charges and inconsistent figures.

Bankai International initiated the suit on April 17, 2023, seeking to recover USD 2,940,012.01 for international telephone services allegedly provided to GAMTEL. The matter was initially placed on the undefended list following an ex parte motion granted on April 24, 2023.

GAMTEL, however, filed a Notice of Intention to Defend on May 18, 2023, challenging both the substance and the jurisdiction of the claim. Represented by Counsel A.A. Ceesay, the defendant argued that Bankai failed to comply with the invoicing requirements set out in Article 6.2 of their Reciprocal International Wholesale Services Agreement. According to the contract, invoices must be submitted within 30 days and contain detailed traffic and rate information to establish a valid claim.

Further inconsistencies were raised by Counsel A.A. Bensouda, who highlighted that Bankai had cited differing amounts in separate communications: USD 2,940,012.01 in its writ, USD 2,238,012.70 in an undated letter, and USD 2,026,197.11 in a letter dated November 8, 2019. Bensouda argued that these discrepancies undermined the integrity of the claim and demonstrated a lack of credibility.

The plaintiff’s counsel argued that the total amount included accrued interest at 18%, calculated at USD 486,287.31 as of March 9, 2021, and added to a principal sum of USD 2,512,484.42. However, Justice Jaiteh found the imposition of this interest rate unjustified, stating that it was not supported by any provision in the agreement. Citing Sowe v. Ebrima Sillah & Sons Ltd (2015) and Lombard North Central Plc v. Butterworth [1987] QB 527, the judge reaffirmed that contractual interest must either be expressly provided or implied by law—neither of which applied in this case.

On the matter of jurisdiction, Justice Jaiteh referred to Clauses 14.1 and 14.2 of the agreement, which clearly state that the contract is governed by the laws of England and Wales and that disputes must be resolved through arbitration under the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce in London. Citing established jurisprudence, including Fiona Trust & Holding Corp v. Privalov [2007] UKHL 40 and International Commercial Bank v. Hage Group Ltd (2011), the Court stressed that arbitration clauses must be respected and enforced.

Justice Jaiteh concluded that the dispute—centered on invoicing, debt acknowledgment, and interest calculations—falls squarely within the scope of the agreed arbitral framework. He held that Bankai’s attempt to circumvent arbitration and inflate its claim through unilateral interest charges rendered the suit procedurally and legally untenable.

Accordingly, the case was struck out for lack of jurisdiction, and Bankai International was ordered to pay D50,000.00 in costs to the defendant, GAMTEL.