Mar 31, 2010, 9:51 AM
Lawyer Riley, who is representing Lamin Sanyang who sued Banjul City Council (BCC) at the Kanifing Industrial Tribunal, on 17 June 2013, before Magistrate Jobarteh, told the tribunal that it was over a month the defendant promised to write to him to settle the case out of court.
He said the defendant’s counsel, Edrissa Sissoho, did not communicate to him. As a result, he stated, they would proceed with the case.
The defendant’s counsel was not present in court, and Lawyer Riley then applied to the tribunal to award cost to the plaintiff because the defendant had wasted their time.
He reminded the tribunal that a cost of D1,000 was earlier awarded to the plaintiff by the tribunal and it was not paid by the defendant.
Magistrate Jobarteh again awarded D1,000 to the plaintiff as cost.
The case was then adjourned till 1 July 2013, for the plaintiff to proceed with his testimony.
Lamin Sanyang is claiming a declaration that his dismissal by the defendant was unlawful.
He also claimed payment of financial entitlement up to retiring age of 60 years, damages for breach of contract, interest at the rate of 25 per cent per annum from 5 April 2012 to date of judgement and thereafter statutory interest of 4 per cent to date of final liquidation, and costs.
According to the particulars of claim of the plaintiff, he was until 5 April 2012 anti-littering supervisor in the employment of the defendant.
The particulars of claim stated that the defendant is a local government city council responsible generally for the administration and upkeep of the city of Banjul.
The claim further indicated that the plaintiff’s appointment with the defendant started on 30 July 2002, as a Recovery Clerk on Grade 3(1) of the newly Government Integrated Pay Scale.
Mr Sanyang, in his particulars of claim, stated that at the time of his dismissal on 5 April 2012, he was an anti-littering supervisor on grade 6 earning a salary of D2,790.
He further claimed that on 12 August 2011, he was suspended from work for two weeks without pay, although the letter of suspension clearly stated that he “could not be technically responsible for personally collecting the fees” in question.
Mr Sanyang claimed that on 1 September 2011, he was redeployed from Albert Market unit to the anti-littering unit as a supervisor, adding that prior to his dismissal, the defendant failed to comply with section 89 of the Labour Act.
He went on to claim that at the time of his dismissal, he was 41 years of age.
Sanyang indicated in his claim that he had never been involved in any financial malpractices and has never neglected his duties, thereby causing any loss of income to the defendant.
As a result of the foregoing, he claimed, he has lost all his financial emoluments up to the retiring age of 60 years.
He finally claimed that his dismissal was therefore unlawful, null and void.