The D7 million fraud case filed in by Guaranty Trust Bank Ltd (GTB) against Baba Jobe, ex-Majority Leader of the National Assembly and NAM for Jarra West, yesterday resumed before Justice Haddy Roche of the High Court in Banjul.
Mrs. Janet Sallah-Njie, Counsel for Mr. Jobe informed the court that her client, is not liable for the claim made by the plaintiff, Guaranty Trust Bank Ltd.  She said GT Bank Ltd, is a financial institution which has categories of obligations under Financial Institution’s Act of 1992, in accordance with banking practices and regulations to exercise utmost prudence in dealing with their customers.

She pointed out that there are requirements usually put in place before opening any banking institution or companies, such as Memorandum of Association, Article of Association, Certificate of Incorporation, among others.
She then noted that there is a principle of law that guide prudent businessman, but not the bad businessman who entered into bad business transactions.

The Defence Counsel referred to Section 310 of the Company’s Act, to back-up her arguments. She submitted that there was no deed of contract between the plaintiff and defendant who acted as a guarantor or has undertaken as guarantor for any of the defendants.

The Defence Counsel further hinted that with reference to Section 10 of the Company’s Act, principles of common and contract law, the defendant cannot be held liable for the claim as there is no indication of how the claim arose. “The plaintiff made no attempt to sue Red Air Ltd, but instead decided to drag the defendant to court,” she said.
Lawyer Christopher Mene, Counsel for GT Bank Ltd, described the submissions made by the Defence Counsel as a misconceived and misdirected argument which, he said, is completely out of the point. “The arguments should be based on evidence, law and facts. You cannot make arguments on a mere application,” he noted.

The Defence Counsel, he added, has made a lot of noise as to who they have given their money or how the claim arose. “The plaintiff has acted truly with the defendant, all the particulars of the case are deemed admitted,” he told the court.
Lawyer Mene further said the case against the defendant is not a weak one, because there is no indication that the case is not likely to succeed.