High Court Judge Justice Ebrima Jaiteh has given Saihou Drammeh, former director of Gampetrolum Company, a final opportunity to attend court to continue his cross-examination in a civil suit brought by GACH Global Trading Company Limited, warning that any further unexplained absence could lead to the exclusion of his unfinished testimony.
The high-stakes civil fraud case involving GACH Global Trading Company Limited sought to recover over D58 million allegedly misappropriated in petroleum dealings linked to the Gam Petroleum Storage Facility.
GACH Global, owned by prominent businessman Abubakary Jawara, accuses former employee Khadijatou Kebbeh (first defendant) and Saihou Drammeh, ex-Managing Director of Gam Petroleum (second defendant), of fraudulently handling funds meant for fuel supplies
In a ruling delivered on November 2, 2026, Justice Jaiteh granted an adjournment for that day only and directed Drammeh to appear personally on Wednesday, November 4, at 10 am. The judge maintained the remaining hearing dates despite the continued absence of Drammeh’s lawyer, Badou S. M. Conteh.
GACH Global Trading Company Limited is the plaintiff, while Khadijatou Kebbeh and Saihou Drammeh are the first and second defendants, respectively. The ruling concerned attendance, adjournments and the completion of cross-examination; it did not determine the merits of the underlying dispute.
The matter was scheduled to continue Drammeh’s cross-examination by counsel representing Kebbeh. However, neither Drammeh nor Conteh appeared when the case was called.
Correspondence submitted on Conteh’s behalf stated that he was in the United Kingdom for a routine medical check-up. Although he was initially expected to return to The Gambia on November 2, his return was postponed until November 11 or later because of arrangements relating to his son’s graduation.
Justice Jaiteh found that the explanations did not justify disrupting the court’s previously established timetable, particularly as no explanation had been provided for Drammeh’s own absence.
Counsel for Drameh, representing GACH Global, and counsel for Kebbeh, K. Jallow, opposed the adjournment request. They argued that repeated postponements attributable to the second defendant had substantially delayed the proceedings.
According to the ruling, the case last proceeded substantively on March 11, 2026. A hearing scheduled for July 15 could not continue after the court was informed that Drammeh was stranded abroad.
Following that adjournment, the court fixed hearings for November 2, 4, 5 and 12 to allow his cross-examination to continue.
Opposing counsel also submitted that Drammeh’s representatives, Lord’s Chambers, had four legal practitioners and could arrange alternative representation. They noted that counsel Sunmbo Akinbo had previously appeared alongside Conteh and had communicated the latest adjournment request.
Justice Jaiteh accepted that another duly instructed lawyer could protect Drammeh’s interests during cross-examination, including by raising objections and conducting any permitted re-examination.
The judge acknowledged that genuine illness or medical incapacity could justify an adjournment. However, he distinguished such circumstances from an unsupported assertion that counsel was attending a routine medical appointment abroad.
He also found that arrangements surrounding counsel’s son’s graduation did not meet the requirement for compelling circumstances under the High Court Practice Direction, 2013.
Justice Jaiteh stressed that lawyers aware of fixed hearing dates had a professional responsibility to make reasonable arrangements to prevent unnecessary disruption.
Of greater concern, the judge said, was Drammeh’s unexplained failure to attend. The correspondence addressed counsel’s circumstances but did not establish that the second defendant was ill, incapacitated or otherwise prevented from appearing.
The court emphasized that witnesses who give evidence must remain available for cross-examination so opposing parties can test their testimony’s accuracy, consistency and credibility.
Justice Jaiteh examined Order XXXV, Rule 3 of the High Court Rules, which governs adopted witness statements and the obligation to produce witnesses for cross-examination. The provisions allow statements to lose their evidential effect and be expunged where the required opportunity for cross-examination is not provided.
However, he recognized that Drammeh had already undergone some cross-examination. Any decision affecting his testimony would therefore require consideration of the questioning already completed, the remaining issues and the circumstances of any further default
The court did not immediately exclude or expunge his evidence.
Instead, Justice Jaiteh granted one final adjournment to ensure Drammeh had a reasonable opportunity to complete his testimony. He warned that another absence without compelling, verifiable justification would prompt consideration of whether to foreclose further cross-examination and make consequential evidential orders after hearing the parties present.
The judge also invoked the constitutional guarantee of a fair hearing within a reasonable time, stressing that it protected every party.
“The constitutional guarantee of a fair hearing does not entitle a party to endless adjournments,” he stated.
Lord’s Chambers was directed to arrange for Akinbo or another competent, duly instructed lawyer to attend the scheduled hearings. Conteh’s continued absence would not, without further compelling justification, secure another postponement.
Hearings remain fixed for November 4 and 5, from 10 am to 11 am, and November 12, from noon to 2 pm.
The Registrar was ordered to serve a certified copy of the ruling on Lord’s Chambers and ensure Drammeh was promptly notified of the attendance directions.
Justice Jaiteh said the court must enforce its timetable while administering justice fairly and preventing further unnecessary delay.
