Gambia High Court: Dr Jagne Defamation Lawsuit Proceeds to Trial

• Gambia's High Court dismissed Dr. Omar Jagne's application to strike out a defamation lawsuit filed by Amadou Kabba.
• Justice Oduma ruled on November 3 that Kabba's claims present triable issues requiring a full trial.
• Dr. Jagne was ordered to pay D10,000 in costs to Mr. Kabba.
• The lawsuit alleges Dr. Jagne accused Kabba of stealing his daughter's medical file, leading to police involvement and reputational damage.
• The case, seeking D1.5 million in damages, is adjourned until January 25, 2027.

This decision by Justice Oduma ruling Gambia reinforces the principle that courts are generally disinclined to prevent a full hearing on the merits when a plaintiff's statement of claim adequately presents what are considered triable issues, thereby making it challenging to dismiss such defamation cases on preliminary procedural grounds.

The High Court in Banjul has dismissed an attempt by Dr. Omar Jagne, the chief executive officer of Africmed International Hospital, to have a defamation lawsuit against him thrown out. The case was initiated by Amadou Kabba, a former employee of the hospital. Justice Oduma, presiding over the matter, issued a ruling on November 3, determining that the allegations put forth by Kabba present substantive issues that necessitate a full trial.

As part of her decision, Justice Oduma mandated that Dr. Jagne compensate Mr. Kabba with D10,000 to cover legal costs incurred during this preliminary phase. The proceedings have now been scheduled to resume on January 25, 2027, when the substantive merits of the defamation claim are expected to be heard. This ruling ensures that the dispute between Amadou Kabba and Dr. Omar Jagne will proceed to a comprehensive examination of the facts.

The lawsuit stems from an incident in October 2023, while Mr. Kabba was still employed at Africmed International Hospital as a housekeeping supervisor, a position he held for nearly 13 years before his resignation on November 1, 2023. According to Mr. Kabba's statement of claim, Dr. Jagne accused him of stealing his daughter's medical file. This accusation allegedly led to police officers arresting Mr. Kabba at the hospital premises.

Mr. Kabba's legal filing further details that following his arrest, police officers escorted him to his residence, where they conducted a search for the missing file. Subsequently, he was transported to the Brusubi Police Station for questioning before being released. He asserts that the ensuing police investigation concluded without finding any evidence to link him to the alleged theft. Mr. Kabba contends that this incident severely damaged his standing among his colleagues at the hospital and within his community, causing him significant emotional distress and ultimately contributing to his decision to resign from Africmed. The dispute, as outlined in his claim, arose after he sought financial assistance for his daughter's medical treatment, who had previously received care at Africmed for burns sustained as a child and later underwent surgery abroad. His wife, Hawa A. Cham, has also submitted a witness statement detailing the impact of these events on their family.

Dr. Jagne's legal team had sought to have the case dismissed before it could reach trial, arguing that Mr. Kabba's statement of claim failed to establish a proper cause of action. However, Justice Oduma firmly rejected this strike-out application. In her ruling, she emphasized that the claims were clearly articulated within the court documents and could not be resolved through a preliminary motion. The judge explicitly stated that "These issues are expressly pleaded," and further clarified that "They are triable issues and cannot be resolved in a motion."

Justice Oduma characterized Dr. Jagne's application as "premature" because it primarily challenged the evidentiary basis of Mr. Kabba's claims rather than their legal sufficiency on paper. She deemed the motion "unmeritorious," concluding that "The motion is hereby dismissed for lack of merit." This decision by Justice Oduma ruling Gambia reinforces the principle that courts are generally disinclined to prevent a full hearing on the merits when a plaintiff's statement of claim adequately presents what are considered triable issues, thereby making it challenging to dismiss such defamation cases on preliminary procedural grounds.

This ruling carries significant weight for the landscape of defamation litigation in The Gambia. It signals a clear judicial preference for allowing cases to proceed to a full trial when the initial pleadings disclose genuine factual or legal disputes that warrant a thorough examination. For legal practitioners, the outcome of Amadou Kabba v Dr Omar Jagne underscores the critical importance of robust and comprehensive pleading in defamation actions, as courts are evidently reluctant to prevent a full hearing on the merits for adequately pleaded claims.

While the court has not yet made any determination regarding the veracity of Mr. Kabba's allegations or his entitlement to the D1.5 million in damages for alleged defamation, or the D150,000 sought for legal and administrative costs, the dismissal of the strike-out application means these substantial claims will now be fully litigated. The case's progression to trial, scheduled for January 25, 2027, highlights that preliminary motions, particularly those seeking to strike out a claim for lack of a cause of action, face a high bar when the statement of claim clearly outlines triable issues. This approach ensures that parties have the opportunity to present their full case, rather than having it curtailed at an early stage.

This ruling reinforces that Gambian courts will generally allow defamation claims to proceed to trial if the statement of claim discloses triable issues, making it difficult to dismiss such cases on preliminary motions. Lawyers should advise clients that robust pleading is crucial, and courts are disinclined to prevent a full hearing on the merits for adequately pleaded claims.

Source: Original reporting via Foroyaa