The High Court, presided over by Justice Jaiteh, has granted an application allowing Harouna Kebbeh to testify as an additional witness in the civil suit filed by GACH Global Trading Company.
The plaintiff, GACH Global (owned by Abubakary Jawara), sued former employee Khadijatou Kebbeh and former Gam Petroleum Managing Director Saikou Drammeh for over D58 million, alleging fraud and theft related to fuel transactions.
GACH claims Kebbeh and Drammeh misappropriated funds meant for petroleum supplies, with GACH seeking repayment, damages, and legal fees. GACH is claiming over D58M principal, $221,000 for products, $1,600 in commissions, D1 million in legal fees, plus interest.
When the case was called Counsel L.S. Camara, K. Jallow, and F. Jallow appeared for the first defendant (Khadijatou Kebbeh); Counsel B.S. Conteh for the second defendant (Saikou Drammeh); and Counsel Ida Drammeh for GACH Global.
Counsel K. Jallow informed the court that they had filed a motion on 29th December, 2025, seeking leave for the first defendant to file an additional witness statement from Harouna Kebbeh. Counsel K. Jallow argued that Harouna is central to the suit, as his name has been repeatedly mentioned in pleadings and oral testimony.
Counsel K. Jallow noted that the second plaintiff witness, Abdoulie Saine (PW2), has testified in court that he witnessed Harouna Kebbeh delivering bags of cash containing €749,965 and $240,000 to Saikou Drammeh’s residence in Brufut.
Counsel K. Jallow contended that since Harouna’s name “permeates the pleadings,” his direct testimony is essential for the court to discover the truth regarding the physical handover of the money.
“In the interest of justice, Harouna Kebbeh should be allowed to testify,” Counsel Jallow argued, relying on Order 23 Rule 14(6) and (7) of the High Court Rules.
While Counsel Ida Drammeh for GACH did not oppose the motion, Counsel B.S. Conteh for Saikou Drammeh objected indicating that they filed a 17-paragraphs affidavit in opposition.
Counsel B.S. Conteh contended that once the trial begins, a party cannot introduce new evidence, characterising the request as an “amendment disguised as an application for an additional witness.”
In a rebuttal, Counsel K. Jallow argued that Conteh’s opposition violated Sections 90 and 91 of the Evidence Act, claiming it was filled with legal arguments, conclusions, and bare denials which are prohibited in affidavit evidence. She referred the court to Order 23 Rule 14(19), which empowers the court to grant leave where justice demands.
In delivering his ruling, Justice Jaiteh identified the sole issue as whether the court should permit the additional witness statement under Order 23 Rule 14(7). Justice Jaiteh noted that the rule is “straightforward, permissive, and discretionary,” and does not impose restrictions based on the stage of the trial, provided the application is made in good faith.
Justice Jaiteh highlighted that the central issue in the case is whether money paid by the plaintiff was handed to Saikou Drammeh through Harouna Kebbeh.
Justice Jaiteh said the witness Abdoulie Saine had already testified under cross-examination that he saw Harouna Kebbeh bring money to the 2nd defendant’s house.
Justice Jaiteh rejected Counsel Conteh’s argument that it was an “amendment,” stating that an amendment alters pleadings, whereas calling a witness merely seeks to prove existing pleadings.
Justice Jaiteh was critical of Counsel Conteh’s affidavit in opposition, particularly paragraph 10, which described the witness as a “tainted witness.”
“This is a conclusion of law and credibility, a determination reserved exclusively for the Court. A deponent is not entitled to usurp the judicial function,” the Judge stated.
Citing legal luminaries like Lord Denning, Justice Jaiteh emphasised that procedural rules are “handmaids of justice, not its mistress.” He maintained that the object of the court is to secure justice and not punish parties for mistakes or technicalities.
Justice Jaiteh stated that refusing the application would deprive the bench of crucial evidence. Justice Jaiteh granted the leave, deeming Harouna Kebbeh’s witness statement properly filed and served.
The case adjourned to 04th February 2026, from 14:15 to 16:00, for the testimony of the first defendant, Khadijatou Kebbeh.
