Jan 25, 2013, 9:44 AM
The case involving the British High Commission and two others failed to proceed on 27 February 2013, at the Kanifing Industrial Tribunal.
According to reliable sources, the British High Commission has written to the Kanifing Industrial Tribunal acknowledging receipt of a letter on 5 February 2013, from the tribunal.
The letter, according to sources, stated that the British High Commission, as a Diplomatic Mission, protocol dictates that issues of the nature of the case must go through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who will duly notify the British High Commission, and that the British High Commission will then prepare a response in relation to the claims.
When Garba Cham, who represented the plaintiffs at the Kanifing Industrial Tribunal was contacted, he said he had advised the plaintiffs to forward their claims to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
He further confirmed that the plaintiffs will do so as advised.
The case was adjourned till 11 March 2013.
It would be recalled that the British High Commission, Graham Birse and Felix Badjie were on 13 February 2013 dragged to the Kanifing Industrial Tribunal by Lamin Manneh, Victory Tendeng, Haddy Jobe, Ansumana Manjang, Tida Jallow and John Manga, former employees of the commission.
The plaintiffs’ claim is for the recovery of D9, 967,752.14 being the total monthly salaries of the plaintiffs for the remaining of the plaintiffs’ statutory work life to the pensionable age of 60 years.
Damages for wrongful termination and redundancy, breach of contract and trust, betrayal, and social security contribution based on monthly salary for the plaintiffs of their pensionable age remaining.
According to the particulars of claim of the plaintiffs, the defendants accepted to offer the plaintiffs’ appointment as LE VBI Watchman.
The plaintiffs claimed that after acceptance of the offer of appointment, they served the defendants successfully as LE VBI Watchman without any misconduct, fraud or any dishonesty in the performance of their service delivery to the defendant.
The plaintiffs stated in their claim that the defendants had never complained anything detrimental about them regarding their service delivery and had nothing adverse against them pertaining their service efficiency.
Lamin Manneh and his colleagues further claimed that the defendants, for reasons best known to them, and contrary to the Labour Act, declared the plaintiffs redundant on 5 November 2011, and terminated their services by substituting the services of the plaintiffs with G4s Security Service owned by British citizens.