Mar 20, 2017, 10:24 AM
The Banjul City Council (BCC), dragged to the Kanifing Industrial Tribunal by its former employee Lamin Sanyang for unlawful dismissal, is to settle the case out of court.
This was made known to the tribunal on 3 June 2013 by the defendant’s counsel Edrissa Sissoho.
Counsel Sissoho said further that they wanted to give themselves an opportunity to settle the case out of court, and asked the tribunal to adjourn the case for two weeks.
Lawyer Riley, who is representing Lamin Sanyang, the plaintiff, rose and informed the tribunal that the defendant’s counsel had promised to give him a letter for settlement of the case.
When he receives the letter, he said, they would sit and discuss it.
Magistrate Jobarteh, chairman of the tribunal, then adjourned the case till 17 June 2013, for report of settlement.
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.