By: Dawda M. Jallow
ORYX Energies (Gambia) Limited has filed a nine-ground appeal against a High Court judgment ordering the company to pay more than D2.2 million in compensation to its former Information Technology Manager for unlawful dismissal, while also seeking a stay of execution to suspend enforcement of the ruling pending appeal.
The company filed its notice of appeal on June 3, 2026, at the Court of Appeal, challenging the decision delivered by Justice Jaiteh on June 2, 2026. A separate application for stay of execution was filed at the High Court on June 4, 2026, requesting suspension of enforcement of the judgment until the appeal is determined.
Both applications were filed by Counsel Ida D. Drammeh on behalf of the company.
In an affidavit supporting the applications, ORYX Energies argued that the appeal raises substantial legal and factual issues with strong prospects of success, and that immediate enforcement of the judgment would render the appeal nugatory if it succeeds.
Operations Manager Dodou Njai stated that the total judgment sum stands at D2,202,360.72, warning that payment at this stage could result in irrecoverable loss. He added that the company is financially stable and capable of satisfying the judgment should the appeal fail.
Njai further disclosed that ORYX Energies had already paid the claimant D229,144 on August 16, 2022, as terminal benefits, including notice pay and outstanding leave. He also stated that the claimant, Momodou Jallow, has since secured alternative employment, which he said should have been considered in the assessment of damages.
The company’s nine grounds of appeal challenge both liability and the quantum of damages awarded by the High Court.
ORYX argues that the trial judge effectively rewrote the employment contract by awarding compensation far beyond the agreed termination terms, which provided for one month’s notice or payment in lieu.
It further contends that the damages awarded were excessive and failed to consider mitigating factors, including prior payments and the claimant’s subsequent employment.
The company also disputes the court’s findings on internal procedures, including retrieval of company equipment and suspension of system access, arguing that these were operational measures consistent with company policy and not evidence of unfair dismissal.
ORYX further challenges the finding of breach of natural justice, stating that the trial court applied standards outside the Labour Act and made findings not pleaded by the claimant.
The company also argues that the court improperly evaluated evidence, considered the claimant’s medical condition without legal basis, and awarded relief beyond what was claimed, including D100,000 in costs.
Additional grounds challenge the application of constitutional provisions on discrimination and allege inconsistencies in the judgment regarding findings on discrimination and medical vulnerability.
ORYX maintains that the judgment is against the weight of evidence and should be set aside in its entirety.
The Court of Appeal is expected to fix a hearing date, while the stay of execution application remains pending before the High Court.