Mar 6, 2014, 9:20 AM
Lawyer Sidney Riley, who is representing Lamin Sanyang, who has sued BCC at the Kanifing Industrial Tribunal for wrongful dismissal, on 3 December 2013, before Magistrate Jobarteh and his two panelists, Cole and Davies, told the tribunal there had been correspondences between the plaintiff and the defendant.
He further told the court that the defendant had made an offer to settle the case out of court.
Lawyer Riley posited that the plaintiff had replied to the defendant, asking them to reconsider their offer.
He said further that the plaintiff was waiting for the response of the defendant.
The case was adjourned till 16 December 2013.
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.
Mr Sanyang, the plaintiff, in his earlier testimony, told the tribunal that some shopkeepers at the Albert Market made some payments to BCC revenue collectors but the exact amount of money was never recorded in the collection cash book.
He testified that during his inspection as a revenue inspector, he went to many shops and found out that most of the shopkeepers had paid for one year and he recorded the receipt numbers and the amount from the shopkeepers, adding that he came back to the office and collected all the collection cash books.
Sanyang adduced that he found the original receipts and the amount paid and record in the collection cash book did not tally.
He further said the Albert Market spot checking report inspection was given to him to identify, which he did, adding that he compiled the documents.
He posited that he gave one to the Accounts Officer and retained one, further stating that he compiled the documents from the shopkeepers with their receipt numbers and verified them in the collection cash book payment.
Sanyang testified that Talbatu Alimi, a shopkeeper, made a payment of D3,025 and was issued with a receipt whose number was 0645474 dated 8 March 2010.
He said D275 was recorded in the collection cash book and there was a difference of D2,750.
He adduced that Omar Jallow, also a shopkeeper, paid an amount of D7,400 and was issued with a receipt numbered 0474863 with no date on it.
D6,500 was recorded in the collection cash book on 3 February 2010, and there was a difference of D900, he posited.
Sanyang stated that Omar Hydara, another shopkeeper, made a payment of D1,350 for three months on 21 June 2010, and was issued with a receipt whose number was 0653117 but D900 was recorded in the collection cash book, and there was a difference of D450.
He said Sulayman Hydara, a shopkeeper, on 17 February 2010, made a payment of D5,400 for January to December but D450 was recorded in the collection cash book, making a difference of D4,950.
All the receipts were tendered by Mr Sanyang’s counsel and they were admitted by the tribunal.