The suit arises from claims by GACH Global against its former employee, Khadijatou Kebbeh, and the former Managing Director of Gam Petroleum, Saikou Drammeh, over the alleged fraudulent acquisition and retention of D58,961,150.
The plaintiff is also seeking the recovery of US$221,000, allegedly obtained as payment for petroleum products supplied through the Gam Petroleum Storage Facility, and an additional US$1,600 said to be a commission paid to Ms Kebbeh for facilitating a petroleum product agreement dated 16 September 2021.
GACH Global further claims D1 million in legal and administrative costs, with interest at 24 percent from 31 August 2021 until judgment, and a subsequent interest rate of four percent until full payment.
At the hearing, the plaintiff was represented by Counsel I. Drammeh. Counsel L. S. Camara, K. Jallow and F. Jallow appeared for the first defendant, Khadijatou Kebbeh, while Counsel B. S. Conteh appeared for the second defendant, Saikou Drammeh, who was absent.
The ruling followed a motion on notice dated and filed on 29 December 2025 by Counsel K. Jallow for the first defendant. Informing the court, Counsel Jallow stated that the motion had been duly served on all parties.
Both Counsels I. Drammeh and B. S. Conteh acknowledged receipt of the motion, with the latter confirming that he had also filed and served a 17-paragraph affidavit in opposition sworn by Ndogal Sowe on 13 January 2026.
Counsel Jallow acknowledged receipt of the affidavit in opposition the same day.
Moving the motion, Counsel K. Jallow explained that it sought two principal orders, leave for the first defendant to file an additional affidavit of witness statement of Harouna Kebbeh, and an order deeming the affidavit of witness statement filed on 29 December 2025 as properly filed and served
She stated that the application was supported by a 15-paragraph affidavit sworn by Cathrine Fatty.
Relying on Order 23 Rule 14(6) and (7) of the High Court (Amendment) Rules 2013, Counsel Jallow submitted that the application merely sought to place before the court additional relevant evidence through a witness whose name had been repeatedly mentioned in the pleadings and testimony already before the court.
However, Counsel B.S. Conteh for the second defendant opposed the application, contending that once pleadings had closed and trial commenced, a party could not introduce new evidence.
He characterised the application as an amendment disguised as an application for an additional witness and relied on the affidavit in opposition.
In reply on points of law, Counsel K. Jallow relied on Order 23 Rule 14(19) of the High Court (Amendment) Rules 2013 and Order 6 Rule 2 of the First Schedule to the Rules of Court, submitting that the rules expressly empower the court to grant leave for additional witnesses where justice so demands.
Delivering his ruling, Justice Jaiteh stated that the sole issue for determination was whether the court should grant leave to the first defendant to file an additional affidavit of witness statement of Harouna Kebbeh pursuant to Order 23 Rule 14(7).
He noted that the language of the rule is permissive and discretionary, imposing no restriction based on the stage of proceedings, provided the application is made in good faith and the evidence sought is relevant.
Justice Jaiteh observed that the supporting affidavit established that the first defendant had filed an amended statement of defence and a reply to the second defendant’s amended defence, and that a central factual issue concerned the monies allegedly paid by the plaintiff and whether they were handed over to the second defendant through Harouna Kebbeh, the younger brother of the first defendant.
He further noted that the second defendant’s witness, Abdoulie Saine, had testified under cross-examination that he was present when Harouna Kebbeh brought the monies to the second defendant’s house.
“It is therefore beyond dispute that Harouna Kebbeh is not a new or surprise witness, but one whose name and role already permeate both the pleadings and the oral evidence before the Court,” Justice Jaiteh held, adding that the proposed testimony is plainly relevant and directly connected to the issues joined.
Rejecting the second defendant’s argument, Justice Jaiteh held that calling an additional witness does not amount to an amendment of pleadings but rather serves to prove issues already joined. He also faulted the affidavit in opposition, finding that it contained conclusions, bare denials and argumentative assertions contrary to sections 90 and 91 of the Evidence Act.
He cited, as an example, a paragraph describing a witness as “tainted,” which he said was a conclusion reserved exclusively for the court. The offending portions were accordingly discountenanced,
emphasising that procedural rules should not be used to defeat substantial justice,
Justice Jaiteh cited judicial authorities cautioning against undue technicality, noting that courts exist to discover the truth and decide cases on their real merits. He concluded that no prejudice would be suffered by the defendants if the additional witness were allowed, and that refusing the application could deprive the court of crucial evidence.
Accordingly, the court granted the application, allowing the first defendant to file the additional affidavit of witness statement of Harouna Kebbeh. The affidavit filed on 29 December 2025 was deemed properly filed and served.
The case was adjourned until 4th February 2026.
