Feb 26, 2015, 10:20 AM
Continuing his testimony under cross-examination, Lamin Touray, manager of the company, told the tribunal that the suspension of the plaintiff, Seedy Cham, was lawful.
Asked by Garba Cham, who was representing the plaintiff, whether it was correct that the witness admitted that he gave the plaintiff a recommendation letter, he answered in the positive.
Again asked whether it was correct that he said Seedy Cham was not a good worker and was not punctual, Touray confirmed that he said so.
At this juncture, Garba Cham showed the witness the said recommendation letter, which he identified. Garba Cham then applied to tender the document.
The defence counsel, Salieu Taal, objected because he said it was a photocopy, adding that a proper foundation had not been laid to tender the document.
Garba Cham then said the document was relevant and the witness had admitted that he gave the document to the plaintiff.
He argued that according to the Industrial Tribunal Rules 9 (3), the document was relevant to be tendered.
He further argued that the original copy was already tendered when the plaintiff testified, but when he went through the exhibits tendered, he could not find the said document.
Magistrate Colley then ruled that the photocopy of the recommendation letter sought to be tendered was rejected on the grounds that the original copy was claimed to have been tendered.
Garba Cham then continued, and asked the witness why the defendant put the plaintiff’s image on billboards as advertisement. Touray said he did not know.
Garba asked him again whether it was not correct that the plaintiff met him concerning his image being used for advertisement without his consent.
The witness said this was not correct.
Asked whether it was correct that he was informed of a compensation package for the plaintiff, in the sum of D200,000, Touray said he was not aware.
Asked why he waited for five years to dismiss the plaintiff for not signing the contract of employment, Touray said it was the plaintiff who told him that he was seeking advice from the Labour Department.
It was put to him that he had no right to dismiss the plaintiff, and that the dismissal was unlawful.
Garba Cham also told Touray that he caused the plaintiff damages, and that putting his image on billboards without his consent was unlawful.
The witness said the tribunal should decide whether it was unlawful.
The case was adjourned to 8 January 2015, for the defendant to call another witness.