Tribunal Rejects UTG’s Stay Application, Orders Immediate Hearing in Professors’ Case
The Kanifing Industrial Tribunal has dismissed the University of The Gambia’s (UTG) request for a stay of proceedings in a case initiated by Dr. Alieu Gibba and Professor Matarr Njie. The ruling, delivered on Tuesday by Chairperson M.S. Jallow with panellists J. Krubally and M. Sankareh, paves the way for the immediate hearing of the case against UTG.
UTG, represented by Acting Registrar Bobo Baldeh, had filed a motion seeking a stay of proceedings pending the outcome of an appeal at the High Court. The university argued that the appeal raised significant jurisdictional and legal issues. However, Senior Counsel Malick Jallow, representing the professors, contended that UTG’s supporting affidavit failed to demonstrate any special circumstances beyond the assertion that the appeal touched on jurisdictional matters.
After reviewing submissions and the supporting documentation, the tribunal found that the university’s application lacked sufficient factual support. Citing the precedent set in State vs. Isaac Campbell, the panel emphasized that a stay of proceedings is a serious measure with far-reaching consequences and requires compelling evidence.”An order for stay of trial proceedings pending an interlocutory appeal should not be taken lightly. It has far-reaching consequences for all the parties and for the administration of justice,” the tribunal noted, citing the Campbell case.
The tribunal determined that UTG’s affidavit in support of their application failed to provide adequate facts justifying a stay. While the university claimed the appeal raised arguable legal points and that a refusal to stay would render any successful appeal meaningless, the tribunal deemed these arguments insufficient.
“These are honestly not enough facts supporting the grant for proceedings. And attention is drawn to the fact that the current stay of application is not for a stay of an execution where the outcome of the appeal could be rendered nugatory,” the ruling stated.
The tribunal noted that UTG’s affidavit did not offer adequate justification for a stay. While the university maintained that the pending appeal raised arguable legal points and that denying a stay would render any successful appeal ineffective, the tribunal ruled that these arguments were insufficient. Moreover, the panel highlighted the absence of any demonstration that continuing the proceedings would prejudice UTG.
“In the event the appeal succeeds, proceedings at the Tribunal shall be put to a stop forthwith, and when it goes otherwise it shall be a mere continuation of the same. And since we’ve not been as well told of how prejudicial it shall be on the Applicants, we shall invoke the holdings of the Court in the case supra that we cannot stay proceedings of this case just because there is an appeal pending, and it is asked for,” the tribunal ruled.
In light of this, the tribunal dismissed UTG’s application and directed the immediate commencement of the plaintiffs’ case.