The dispute stemmed from a loan facility granted by the bank in late 2012. Borrowers Alieu Badara Ceesay and Sarja Camara sought an overdraft of D10.5 million to finance a housing project in Sukuta through their joint venture, JV–Kaninli Group Investment.
The bank approved the facility in December 2012, later increasing it to D15 million and adding USD140,000 for cashew trading operations
The Bank stated that the Sumbundu brothers served as guarantors, executing Powers of Attorney and Memoranda of Deposit that allowed their leasehold properties in the name of the two brothers - Janko Sumbundu and Salibo Sumbundu, to be pledged as security.
Justice Jaiteh examined whether the plaintiffs had authorised the use of their properties as collateral for loans granted to Alieu Badara Ceesay and Sarja Camara, who operated under the name JV–Kaninli Group Investment.
The properties had been pledged to secure substantial credit facilities, but the owners maintained they neither signed nor consented to any such arrangement.
At the centre of the dispute were Powers of Attorney and Memoranda of Deposit presented to the bank as evidence of authority.
According to the two brothers, they only learned of the pledge when served with court documents initiated by the bank to recover the outstanding debt, which had ballooned to D21,730,783.60 due to defaults.
To substantiate their claims, the brothers presented expert testimony from retired Deputy Commissioner of Police Alhaji Lamin S. Ndong, a handwriting specialist. He examined the signatures on the disputed Powers of Attorney and compared them to genuine specimens provided by the brothers.
Ndong concluded that the signatures were forged by simulation and did not belong to either man.
The bank’s witness, Landing Joof, admitted under cross-examination several critical failures.
He confirmed the bank never contacted the brothers to verify their consent, that the borrowers presented the documents, and that no efforts were made to witness the signings or authenticate the brothers’ identities and signatures. He also acknowledged that additional funds were disbursed even after the borrowers had defaulted on the initial facility.
FIBank relied on statutory presumptions under the Evidence Act, arguing that documents appearing to be properly executed and authenticated should be presumed valid.
However, Justice Jaiteh emphasised that such presumptions are rebuttable, particularly where credible evidence of forgery is produced. The bank did not produce its own expert to challenge those findings.
The Court also found it significant that the plaintiffs were not customers of the bank, nor were they beneficiaries of the loan facilities, and were living outside The Gambia at the time the documents were allegedly executed.
In a strongly worded assessment of the bank’s conduct, Justice Jaiteh noted that FIbank never contacted the plaintiffs to confirm their consent, failed to verify their identities or signatures, and relied entirely on documents brought in by the borrowers. Evidence further showed that additional funds were advanced even after the original facility had gone into default.
The judge concluded that this pattern of conduct fell far below the standard expected of a prudent financial institution.
While Justice Jaiteh stopped short of finding deliberate complicity, he ruled that the bank’s actions amounted to gross negligence and materially facilitated the fraudulent use of the plaintiffs’ title deeds. The judgment reaffirmed the long-standing legal principle that a forged document is void from the outset and cannot confer any lawful rights, regardless of whether the party relying on it acted in good faith.
Having resolved all issues in favour of the plaintiffs, Justice Jaiteh declared that the Powers of Attorney and related instruments were unauthorised and void. He ordered FIBank to immediately release and deliver up all original title deeds belonging to the plaintiffs, free of any encumbrance.
A perpetual injunction was also granted restraining the bank from selling, transferring, charging, or otherwise interfering with the properties based on the impugned loan transaction. Additionally, the Court declared that the “plaintiffs are not guarantors and bear no liability whatsoever” for the outstanding debts claimed by the bank.
Costs in the sum of D100,000 was awarded against the bank.
The original action in this matter was instituted by First International Bank Limited as Plaintiff, while the 4th and 5th Defendants were subsequently the counterclaimants.
Upon an application by First International Bank Limited, the main suit was struck out. At the time the main suit was struck out, the 4th and 5th Defendants being the two brothers had already filed their defence and counterclaim.
Consequent upon the striking out of the main suit, the said 4th and 5th Defendants became the plaintiffs in the counterclaim, with First International Bank Limited assuming the position of defendant thereto.
At the material time, the trial Judge was Justice Kumba Sillah-Camara (as she then was), who ordered that the pleadings be amended accordingly and directed that the counter-proceedings should continue as amended.
Pursuant to that order, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Counterclaim on the 19th of October 2016, wherein they sought, inter alia, reliefs from the Court.
