Plaintiff in AB RENT A CAR case cross-examined

Under cross-examination, Seedy Cham told the tribunal that he worked for the defendant for nine years from 2004 in January.

He stated that Mike Boston was the manager and that he knew Modou Lamin Touray who is still a manager with the company.

He posited that he accepted him as his manager, adding that he followed his instructions according to the rules.

Cham narrated that he was given a contract of employment after he served the company for 5 years, further stating that he did not sign the employment contract.

He testified under cross-examination that he continued working and was paid per month, adding that he did not get some benefits.

Seedy Cham said Mike Boston and Modou Lamin Touray respected him.

He told the tribunal that during Mike Boston’s time, he was a driver and a guide, adding that when he travelled and came back, he would be given a day-off.

He testified that Mike Boston used to give him a gift during feasts like Tobaski, further stating that if he needed a loan, the company made it available and that he sometimes used the company’s vehicle.

Seedy Cham adduced that he was never given a car by the company on credit but bought it for D20,000.

He posited that his picture was put on a billboard and the internet for three years, adding that Jan told him he would be paid for putting his picture on the billboard and the internet but Jan fell ill.

Seedy Cham told the tribunal that it was him, Jan and Mr Luke who were present during the agreement, adding that he started complaining in 2012 because Jan was sick and was away for a long time, and that he wrote a letter about the complaint to the company.

He said the person who suspended him did not employ him, adding that it was Jan, Mike Boston and Mr Luke who employed him.

He stated that Modou Lamin Touray and his assistant were not present when they discussed his picture on the billboard.

Seedy Cham maintained that he paid cash when he bought the car from the company.

Garba Cham, who was representing Seedy Cham, applied to tender a receipt for the purchase of the said car. The defendant’s counsel did not raise any objection and the document was admitted by the tribunal.

He further posited that he worked under Mike Boston and Mr Touray, who issued him with a warning letter.

He identified the warning letter, which was tendered by the defendant’s counsel.

Garba Cham did not raise any objection and the document was admitted by the tribunal.

Seedy Cham narrated that Mike Boston never gave him a warning letter but he was challenged by the defendant’s counsel that he was not saying the truth.

“I said the truth,” he told the tribunal.

Another warning letter was given to him by the defendant’s counsel to refresh his memory, and put it to him that he did not speak the truth when he said that Mike Boston never issued him with a warning letter.

Garba Cham rose and objected, saying the said letter was fabricated by the company.

The defendant’s counsel stood and said that the letter was relevant and urged the tribunal to ask Garba Cham to withdraw his statement that the letter was fabricated by the company.

Chairman Jobarteh, in his ruling, admitted the warning letter and said it was relevant and its weight would be determined by the tribunal.

Seedy Cham revealed that the termination of his service was confirmed on 5 June 2013, adding that he was suspended for two weeks prior to his termination.

He said he was invited to a hearing meeting prior to his termination.

A letter which was written to him to attend the hearing meeting was tendered by the defendant’s counsel and Garba Cham did not object. The document was admitted by the tribunal.

Seedy Cham told the tribunal that he did not know the purpose of the meeting and did not attend it but wrote a letter to inform the company that he would not attend it.

The defendant’s counsel tendered the letter written by the plaintiff and Garba Cham did not raise any objection. It was admitted by the tribunal.

Seedy Cham said that after he sent the letter he had written, he was dismissed by the company.

The case was adjourned till 4 November 2013.