Africa-Press – Gambia. The High Court of The Gambia has dismissed in full an appeal filed by Kwadwo Ofusunhene against the University of The Gambia, upholding an earlier ruling by the Kanifing Industrial Tribunal dated January 4, 2022.
Presiding over the matter, Justice Ebrima Jaiteh delivered the judgment. The appellant, represented by F. Jammeh on behalf of M. Drammeh, challenged the Tribunal’s decision on multiple grounds. The respondent, the University of The Gambia, was represented by K. Jallow alongside F. Jallow. Though both parties were absent, their legal counsel was present in court.
Ofusunhene’s appeal stemmed from his dissatisfaction with the Tribunal’s handling of a post-judgment procedure. The High Court systematically addressed and dismissed each of the five grounds presented by the appellant.
Ground One: Alleged Breach of Natural Justice
The appellant argued that the Tribunal violated principles of natural justice and his right to a fair hearing by ordering the judgment creditor to deposit the judgment sum. Justice Jaiteh, however, clarified that the Tribunal had directed the judgment debtor to make the deposit—a prudent step aimed at protecting the interests of both parties. The court held that the appellant’s claim lacked merit and dismissed this ground.
Ground Two: Delay in Preventing Execution
The second ground challenged the Tribunal’s handling of what the appellant termed a delay in preventing the execution of the judgment. Justice Jaiteh ruled that the Tribunal had acted within its mandate to administer justice fairly and equitably, noting that delays—while potentially inconvenient—do not amount to judicial misconduct. This ground was likewise dismissed.
Ground Three: Recognition of a Pending Motion to Relist
Ofusunhene contested the Tribunal’s recognition of a pending motion to relist an appeal that had previously been struck out. Justice Jaiteh affirmed that a motion to relist is a valid legal mechanism that keeps the matter alive until a determination is made by a higher court. He emphasized that the High Court’s jurisdiction remained intact due to the pending motion, which also restrained the lower Tribunal from proceeding with execution. This ground was dismissed.
Ground Four: Challenge to Stay of Execution
The appellant further objected to the Tribunal’s decision to grant a stay of execution. In response, Justice Jaiteh underscored that the stay of execution is a well-established judicial tool used to maintain the status quo while legal processes are ongoing. The court added that such a stay can be granted even in the absence of a formal appeal, particularly where a motion to relist is pending. This argument was found to be without merit and dismissed.
Ground Five: Tribunal Acting Suo Moto
The final ground alleged that the Tribunal acted improperly by raising the issue of a stay of execution suo moto—on its own initiative—without inviting submissions from either party. Justice Jaiteh dismissed this argument, stating that courts are not passive observers and are obligated to ensure that justice is served. He further noted that since the stay of execution was foreseeable in light of the pending motion to relist, the Tribunal was justified in addressing it without further input from the parties.
Final Ruling and Costs
In his concluding remarks, Justice Jaiteh stated that the Tribunal had “exercised sound judicial discretion, adhered to legal principles, and ensured fairness in its decision-making process.” He affirmed the Tribunal’s ruling and dismissed the appeal in its entirety.
The court also awarded costs of D50,000 (Fifty Thousand Dalasis) against the appellant in favor of the University of The Gambia, citing the “unmeritorious nature of the appeal and the inconvenience occasioned to the respondent.”
For More News And Analysis About Gambia Follow Africa-Press
