The High Court presided by Justice Jaiteh dismissed a motion by the 1st Defendant, Khadijatou Kebbeh, to testify virtually via Zoom in the ongoing civil suit of GACH Global Trading Company Limited against Khadijatou Kebbeh & Saihou Drammeh (Former Gampetroleum MD)
Gach CEO Abubakary Jawara is seeking to recover over D58.9 million and other payments he claims were wrongfully taken. According to Gach Global, the amount includes D58,961,150 allegedly taken for petroleum products, $221,000 related to disputed transactions involving Gam Petroleum, and $1,600 said to have been paid to Kebbeh as a commission for helping secure a petroleum agreement in September 2021. The company is also asking the court to award D1 million in legal and administrative costs, plus interest.
Justice Jaiteh ruled that the Kaddijah Kebbeh (1st Defendant) counsel failed to provide any credible evidential basis to justify a departure from the constitutional norm of a public, in-person hearing. Justice Jaiteh’s ruling concluded that the application was “unmeritorious” and legally insufficient.
The 1st Defendant (Kaddijah Kebbeh) represented by Counsel K. Jallow, filed a motion on notice dated October 24, 2025, seeking an order to allow her to testify virtually via Zoom during her defence.
The application invoked Practice Direction No. 1 of 2022, which encourages the use of technology, including virtual hearings “where possible and appropriate”. The supporting affidavit claimed that Kaddijah Kebbeh resides and works in Dubai, adding that she has a two-year-old child in her care and she’s unable to travel due to work and family constraints.
The Plaintiff Abubakary Jawara Counsel I. Drammeh supported the application, but the 2nd Defendant Saikou Drammeh
Counsel B.S. Conteh mounted strong opposition to the application to have Kaddijah Kebbeh testify virtually via Zoom.
In his rationale and findings, Justice Jaiteh looked at the admissibility of the affidavit in opposition. Justice Jaiteh first addressed the 1st defendant (Kaddijah Kebbeh) Counsel’s objection that paragraphs 8 to 20 of the 2nd Defendant’s affidavit in opposition violated sections 89 and 90 of the Evidence Act, 1994, which respectively deal with personal knowledge/belief and prohibit argument, objections, or legal conclusions in affidavits.
Justice Jaiteh held that the challenged paragraphs were merely factual denials and pointed out the absence of proof in the supporting affidavit, such as a failure to attach documentary evidence of the asserted facts.
Justice Jaiteh concluded that a factual denial is not a legal argument and that the paragraphs fully complied with the Evidence Act. The objection was dismissed.
On the core issue of virtual testimony, Justice Jaiteh emphasised that the use of virtual testimony “is not a right” but a judicial discretion to be exercised cautiously, with the burden of proof resting on the applicant to show compelling reasons.
Justice Jaiteh highlighted the complete failure of the Counsel K. Jallow for the 1st defendant (Kaddijah Kebbeh) to substantiate any of her claims; no passport or immigration stamp to prove residence in Dubai, no birth certificate or hospital record to confirm being the mother of a two-year-old child, no employment letter or contract to demonstrate work restrictions and no proof whatsoever of hardship or impossibility in travelling to The Gambia.
Justice Jaiteh stated that in applications where facts are peculiarly within the applicant’s knowledge, documentary proof is essential.
“The failure to attach any supporting documents renders the affidavit in support bare, unsubstantiated, and legally insufficient,” Justice Jaiteh stated.
Justice Jaiteh warned that granting such an application based on unproven assertions would set a dangerous precedent, undermining the administration of justice, the constitutional requirement of public hearings, and the equal treatment of all litigants.
In conclusion, Justice Jaiteh dismissed the application in its entirety and issued a mandatory order for the 1st Defendant, Kaddijah Kebbeh, to be physically present in court.
“The 1st defendant SHALL APPEAR in person before this Honourable Court on the next adjourned date to adopt her witness statement and to be cross-examined.” Justice Jaiteh ruled.
By Kexx Sanneh
