In a landmark ruling that underscores the primacy of statutory employee protections over pure contractual termination clauses, the High Court of The Gambia has declared the dismissal of senior IT Manager Momodou Jallow by Oryx Energy (Gambia) Limited unlawful and unfair.
Delivering judgment on Tuesday, 2 June 2026, in Civil Suit, Hon. Justice Ebrima Jaiteh held that the company could not lawfully rely on a contractual notice provision to mask what was, in substance, a disciplinary dismissal linked to the plaintiff’s sickle cell condition, medically certified absences, and alleged operational concerns.
The court awarded Jallow compensation equivalent to 24 months’ gross salary — D1,952,352.72 — less any terminal benefits already paid, plus D153,000 in proven legal and administrative expenses, D100,000 in costs, and post-judgment interest at 4% per annum. The company was also ordered to reconcile and remit any outstanding social security and provident fund contributions due on his behalf.
Justice Jaiteh’s comprehensive judgment, spanning detailed analysis of evidence and law, sends a strong message to employers in The Gambia: contractual termination rights under Section 55 of the Labor Act, 2007, do not grant immunity from the mandatory requirements of substantive justification and procedural fairness enshrined in Sections 83 and 84 of the Act.
Background and Core Dispute
Jallow was employed in September 2015 as Information Technology Manager by Atlas Energy Limited. Following Oryx Energy’s takeover of operations around 2021, he continued seamlessly in the same senior role. Evidence showed he was instrumental in designing, implementing, and maintaining the company’s entire IT infrastructure, consistently earning performance ratings above 90%.
The dispute erupted after Jallow took medically certified leave in July/August 2022 due to his known sickle cell condition. Upon his return on 4 August 2022, he found his office access revoked, his official email deactivated, and his network access disabled, and was immediately summoned to a disciplinary hearing—with termination following by letter dated 16 August 2022.
Oryx Energy argued the termination was purely contractual — effected with payment in lieu of notice — and therefore unimpeachable. Jallow countered that the contractual clause was used as a cloak for an unfair dismissal rooted in his health-related absences, alleged misconduct, and managerial dissatisfaction.
Court’s Key Findings
After meticulous evaluation of witness testimony, documents, performance records, medical evidence, and submissions by counsel N.M.C. Cham (with M. Roberts) for the plaintiff and A.S. Tambadou with I. Jallow for the defendant, Justice Jaiteh ruled decisively for Jallow.
The court found that the sequence of events — pre-hearing revocation of access combined with a disciplinary summons — revealed that the termination was not a neutral contractual separation but a dismissal based on misconduct and capacity. Once such a connection is established, the evidential burden shifts to the employer to prove a valid reason and fair procedure under the Labor Act.
Justice Jaiteh rejected the company’s narrow reliance on Section 55, stressing that the Labor Act must be read holistically. “Section 55 cannot be read as a statutory license to terminate employment arbitrarily, unfairly or in disregard of other mandatory provisions,” he stated. Contractual rights must yield to the statutory demands of fairness.
On procedure, the judge described the company’s actions as tainted by apparent predetermination. Stripping Jallow of access before the hearing concluded undermined natural justice and the audi alteram partem rule.
Citing authorities including Ridge v Baldwin and Gambian jurisprudence, he held the process fell short of impartiality and fairness.
Regarding the plaintiff’s sickle cell condition, the court stopped short of a formal finding of discrimination but ruled that the company’s handling of medically certified absences lacked sensitivity, proper inquiry, or reasonable accommodation. It failed to follow principles established by persuasive authorities such as East Lindsey District Council v Daubney, which require consultation and fair assessment in ill-health cases.
The judge further dismantled the company’s misconduct allegations. Many complaints were historical and long tolerated; no progressive discipline had occurred despite Jallow’s senior role; and his excellent performance evaluations directly contradicted claims of unreliability.
Reliefs and Broader Implications
Justice Jaiteh emphasized that damages in such cases are compensatory, not punitive. The 24-month award reflected Jallow’s seven years of service, his senior technical role, his high performance, the humiliating manner of his dismissal, and the impact on his livelihood and dignity. Reinstatement was deemed inappropriate due to broken trust.
The ruling reinforces that Gambian labor law prioritizes substance over form. Employers cannot evade statutory protections by labeling a disciplinary dismissal as “contractual termination.”
Legal observers describe the decision as significant for clarifying the interplay between contract and statute in The Gambia’s evolving employment jurisprudence. It serves as a cautionary tale for companies, particularly in sensitive sectors like energy, to adhere strictly to procedural fairness, especially when health issues are involved.
Plaintiff’s counsel welcomed the judgment as a victory for worker rights. Oryx Energy has not yet indicated whether it intends to appeal.
