Court slaps Gamcel with D10.6M payout in contract breach case
Ceesay also sought interest at 30% per annum from 2014 until judgment, and 4% thereafter, alongside legal costs of D110,182. Gamcel, however, denied liability, contending that while Ceesay was indeed an authorised dealer, the company had shifted from a discount system to a commission‑based arrangement around 2010. Under this new model, dealers were remunerated with additional scratch cards rather than cash discounts. Gamcel argued that Ceesay was never entitled to both discount and commission simultaneously. Delivering judgment, Justice Jaiteh ruled that Ceesay had successfully discharged the burden of proof. He noted that Gamcel’s own delivery notes consistently recorded discounts as part of Ceesay’s entitlement. “The Defendant has failed to produce cogent evidence of any valid contractual variation abolishing those discounts; and its reliance on internal memoranda and unsupported assertions is insufficient to displace the clear documentary evidence produced by the Defendant itself,” Justice Jaiteh stated. The court found that Ceesay remained contractually entitled to discounts throughout the disputed period, and that Gamcel had failed to establish any lawful extinguishment of those rights. Justice Jaiteh emphasised that Ceesay’s evidence was supported by documentary records and aligned with principles of English contract law and commercial common sense. “Upon a careful evaluation of the totality of the evidence, I find that the Plaintiff has proved, on a balance of probabilities, that the outstanding discounts due to him amount to D10,654,790,” he declared. While rejecting Ceesay’s claim for pre‑judgment interest at 30% per annum, citing insufficient legal basis, Justice Jaiteh ordered that the judgment sum attract post‑judgment interest at 4% per annum until full payment. He also dismissed Ceesay’s claim for special legal costs of D110,182, ruling that it was not strictly proven. However, the court awarded Ceesay D200,000 in costs, noting the complexity of the proceedings, the extensive documentary evidence, and the principle that costs follow the event. The ruling represents a significant legal setback for Gamcel and underscores the importance of contractual obligations in commercial dealings.
Black News 
Ceesay also sought interest at 30% per annum from 2014 until judgment, and 4% thereafter, alongside legal costs of D110,182. Gamcel, however, denied liability, contending that while Ceesay was indeed an authorised dealer, the company had shifted from a discount system to a commission‑based arrangement around 2010. Under this new model, dealers were remunerated with additional scratch cards rather than cash discounts. Gamcel argued that Ceesay was never entitled to both discount and commission simultaneously.
Delivering judgment, Justice Jaiteh ruled that Ceesay had successfully discharged the burden of proof. He noted that Gamcel’s own delivery notes consistently recorded discounts as part of Ceesay’s entitlement.
“The Defendant has failed to produce cogent evidence of any valid contractual variation abolishing those discounts; and its reliance on internal memoranda and unsupported assertions is insufficient to displace the clear documentary evidence produced by the Defendant itself,” Justice Jaiteh stated.
The court found that Ceesay remained contractually entitled to discounts throughout the disputed period, and that Gamcel had failed to establish any lawful extinguishment of those rights. Justice Jaiteh emphasised that Ceesay’s evidence was supported by documentary records and aligned with principles of English contract law and commercial common sense.
“Upon a careful evaluation of the totality of the evidence, I find that the Plaintiff has proved, on a balance of probabilities, that the outstanding discounts due to him amount to D10,654,790,” he declared.
While rejecting Ceesay’s claim for pre‑judgment interest at 30% per annum, citing insufficient legal basis, Justice Jaiteh ordered that the judgment sum attract post‑judgment interest at 4% per annum until full payment. He also dismissed Ceesay’s claim for special legal costs of D110,182, ruling that it was not strictly proven.
However, the court awarded Ceesay D200,000 in costs, noting the complexity of the proceedings, the extensive documentary evidence, and the principle that costs follow the event.
The ruling represents a significant legal setback for Gamcel and underscores the importance of contractual obligations in commercial dealings.
