#Article (Archive)

Court overruled defendant’s submission

Aug 1, 2012, 10:41 AM | Article By: Yusuf Ceesay

The Kanifing Industrial Tribunal on Monday overruled a submission made by the defendant’s counsel to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claim.

Counsel’s argument was based on the facts that it was the wrong party the plaintiffs brought before the tribunal.

The plaintiffs dragged the defendant, Tie Feng Enterprise, claiming D331, 200 being basic salaries for unlawful termination, damages for breach of contract and for compensation.

Delivering the ruling, the chairman of the tribunal went through the submission made by the defendant’s counsel and the plaintiffs.

She revealed that the defendant’s counsel, in his submission, noted that when the plaintiff was asked whether he realised that he had brought Tie Feng Enterprise to the tribunal, he replied it was Gim Chao he brought to the tribunal.

The defendant’s counsel submitted that the wrong party was before the tribunal as the defendant applied to the tribunal to dismiss the claims.

However, she revealed that the plaintiffs said it was the defendant that accorded them a dismissal hearing; indicating that it was the day they were given termination letter they knew the company (Tie Feng Enterprise) as the employer.

The plaintiff stated again that they were paid by Gim Chao, she said.

Chairman Jorbateh told the tribunal they had carefully read the issues raised by both parties.

She indicated that it was not in dispute that the plaintiffs were not employed by the defendant, but Gim Chao.

However, she revealed that this admission could not warrant the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ case.

She further noted that the dismissal letter of the plaintiff bore the defendant’s name, adding that the plaintiff also revealed that the first and second plaintiffs were paid by the defendant.

The chairman finally ruled that the plaintiffs had made a prima-facie case against the defendant, noting that it was in the interest of justice to hear the case to the end.

However, she stated that the determination of whether the plaintiff had a case would be determined at the end of the trial.

The case was adjourned till 14 August 2012.

Alasana Sanneh’s claim was for D93,600 being four-year basic salary, whilst Babocarr made a claim for D38,400, Abdoulie Gibba did claim D88,800, Bakary Conteh D60,000, and Tijan Bah D50,400 being payments for basic salary for four years.

Read Other Articles In Article (Archive)