In a landmark ruling delivered on Tuesday, December 16, 2025, the High Court presided by Justice Jaiteh, struck out the consolidated civil suit filed by Kaddijatou Saidy and 11 others against St. Therese Upper Basic School, St. Peter’s Senior Secondary School, Charles Jow Memorial Academy, Reverend J.C. Faye Memorial School, and Grace Bilingual School.
The suit is widely referred to as the Veil Case filed by 12 applicants—including Kaddijatou Saidy, Maimunala H. Jawo, Fatou Binta Darboe, and Aasiya A. Darbo sought declarations regarding the right of students to wear veils, a court order to compel six schools to allow Muslim female students to wear veils or hijabs.
The applicants argued that any policy prohibiting the veil violated their fundamental human rights as protected by the 1997 Constitution.
Beyond the schools, the suit also named the Ministry of Basic and Secondary Education and the Attorney General as defendants, seeking orders for them to implement laws and regulations ensuring students could wear veils in schools and tertiary institutions.
The applicants also demanded D20,000,000.00 (Twenty Million Dalasis) in compensation for emotional distress.
Presiding Judge Justice Jaiteh struck out the suit in its entirety against respondents, describing the legal action as “fundamentally defective,” “incompetent,” and an “abuse of the judicial process.”
In three separate rulings but related Justice Jaiteh dismissed the action against the schools without reaching the merits of the religious freedom arguments.
Justice Jaiteh ruled that the suit was incurable defects, ranging from suing non-existent legal entities to a fundamental lack of standing (locus standi).
The first major blow to the applicants’ case concerned the legal status of the Catholic mission schools involved. The first ruling addressed the motions filed by St. Therese Upper Basic School (2nd Respondent) and St. Peter’s Senior Secondary School (5th Respondent).
Counsel R.Y. Mendy, representing the schools, argued that they are merely Catholic mission schools operating under the supervision of the Catholic Education Secretariat (CES). She submitted that because the schools are not incorporated under the Companies Act 2013 nor created by any statute, they are non-juristic persons and cannot legally sue or be sued.
In opposition, Counsel B.S Touray argued that the schools were “juridical” because they were recognized administratively and produced a press release from the Ministry of Basic and Secondary Education (Exhibit “H2”) mentioning the schools and argued that the schools displayed their names on public signboards, thereby holding themselves out as legal entities.
Justice Jaiteh agreed with Counsel R.Y. Mendy submission, ruling that administrative recognition or a signboard does not make a school a legal entity capable of being sued. Justice Jaiteh rejected the Counsel B.S. Touray arguments in its entirety.
Justice Jaiteh held that administrative acknowledgement by a ministry does not transform an institution into a legal person.
Referencing the famous English jurist Lord Denning, Justice Jaiteh noted: “You cannot make something into a legal person by calling it one”.
Justice Jaiteh ruled that legal personality comes only from incorporation or statute, not from a signboard or a press release.
As the applicants failed to produce any certificate of incorporation for the schools, Justice Jaiteh struck out their names from the suit, declaring proceedings against them a “nullity ab initio.”
The second ruling focused on the application by Charles Jow Memorial Academy (6th Respondent), represented by Counsel Yassin Senghore.
In his ruling concerning Charles Jow Memorial Academy (6th Respondent), Justice Jaiteh discovered a factual gap; none of the 12 applicants listed in the suit claimed to be students of Charles Jow Memorial Academy.
The affidavit filed by the applicants mentioned a student named “Naffisa Ceesay” who was allegedly prohibited from wearing a veil. However, Naffisa Ceesay was not listed as a party to the suit, nor were the applicants suing on her behalf via a representative order.
Justice Jaiteh described the litigation against Charles Jow as oppressive and “speculative. He ruled that the applicants lacked locus standi (legal standing) to sue on behalf of a non-party because they had suffered no personal injury attributable to the school.
Justice Jaiteh added that the Court is left with bare allegations concerning a non-party. Courts do not adjudicate on abstract grievances or generalised complaints.
“The law does not permit parties to litigate vicariously or hypothetically on behalf of unnamed third parties who are not before the Court,” Justice Jaiteh ruled.
The suit against Charles Jow Memorial Academy was struck out as incompetent.
The third ruling concerned Reverend J.C. Faye Memorial School (3rd Respondent) and Grace Bilingual School (4th Respondent).
However, the most damaging finding for the applicants suit was their choice of legal procedure. Justice Jaiteh stated that the suit was filed via Originating Summons a method reserved for cases involving simple interpretations of law where facts are not in dispute.
Justice Jaiteh added that the case involved hotly contested facts, including whether bans actually existed, the credibility of witnesses, and claims for massive monetary damages.
Justice Jaiteh ruled that such complex disputes must be initiated by a Writ of Summons, which allows for witnesses and cross-examination.
The Judge remarked that trying to resolve such a contentious case via affidavit evidence was inviting the court to conduct a trial by affidavit, a practice he condemned as fundamentally wrong.
Regarding Reverend J.C. Faye Memorial School (3rd Respondent) and Grace Bilingual School (4th Respondent), Justice Jaiteh found similar defects.
While one applicant, Adama Joof, was identified as a student of Rev. J.C. Faye, Justice Jaiteh found the affidavit failed to allege any act of violation. There was no evidence she was ever stopped from praying, no claim she was punished or expelled and no evidence she was coerced into renouncing her faith.
The Justice Jaiteh noted that the mere fact that a school operates within a religious ethos (Anglican) does not automatically constitute a breach of a student’s rights.
“The affidavit is conspicuously silent on any concrete act or omission capable of grounding a constitutional complaint,” Justice Jaiteh stated.
Furthermore, Justice Jaiteh rejected the applicants’ attempt to sue the Principal of the school to bypass the fact that the school itself was not a legal entity. Justice Jaiteh clarified that a Principal is merely an office holder and does not confer legal personality on an unincorporated school. Justice Jaiteh dismissed the strategy as semantic drafting.
Across all rulings, Justice Jaiteh identified a fundamental and incurable defect in the mode of commencement.
In his conclusion, Justice Jaiteh warned the applicants’ counsel for procedural experimentation” and wasting judicial resources.
“Litigation is not a playground… It is a serious judicial enterprise that demands the highest level of professional care,” Justice Jaiteh warned.
Finally, the suit was struck out in its entirety against 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th Respondents (schools) and the applicants (students) were ordered to pay costs of D50,000.00 to each of the Respondents (St. Therese, St. Peters, Charles Jow, Rev. J.C. Faye, and Grace Bilingual).
