#Article (Archive)

Former MFH-Group employee cross-examined

Jan 25, 2012, 11:20 AM | Article By: Yusuf Ceesay

The plaintiff, Ebrima Touray, who instituted a civil suit against his former employer, MFH Group Company, to the Industrial Tribunal, was on 23 January 2012 cross-examined by the defendant’s counsel.

The plaintiff’s claim against his former employer was among other things, wrongful termination of his services by the defendant.

Continuing his testimony under cross-examination, when reminded by the defendant’s counsel that he testified that it was a procedure to keep deposit slips to be given to the finance manager, the plaintiff responded in the affirmative, adding that he put cash in the Chief Accountant’s drawer and made him aware of it.

When quizzed that he told the court that he took money home because it was on a Friday and there was nobody to keep it, the plaintiff replied in the positive, adding: “It was with the authority of the Chief Accountant, Yomi.”

Asked how long he was at the defendant’s headquarters at Manjai the following day and the witness said: “I was there in the morning and later left for official duties.”

He testified that he supposed to give the said money to the banker who was not there at the time and that was why he kept the money in the accountant’s drawer.

Asked if he was part of the accounts team, he responded in the affirmative, saying: “I did not know how many of us worked there.”

He told the tribunal that it was his role to give money to the banker.

The plaintiff denied that he never told the chief accountant that he had put the said D50,000 in his drawer.

“Mr Yomi told me that he could not deposit the money because he was the Chief Accountant,” he indicated.

The witness added that Mr Yomi granted him that when he came back from stocktaking, he could deposit the money and that was after two weeks.

“You will agree with me that employers have trust and confidence in employees,” the defendant’s counsel told the plaintiff, who replied in the positive, saying it was the reason he was given the job.

Queried that he admitted changing date of the deposit slip, the witness confirmed so, saying, “I only changed one date on the deposit slip to enable me reconcile with the receipt when I was reconciling deposit balance.”

Mr Touray further emphasised to the tribunal that he made changes on the photocopy of the deposit slip for reconciliation purposes, adding that the deposit slip had two dates.

“I put it to you that you changed the date so that your supervisors would think that you paid it on time,” the defendant’s counsel further queried and the plaintiff denied that, saying if that was the case, he would have changed both dates.

He also denied that the said D50, 000 was never put in the Chief Accountant’s drawer but spent by him with the hope of trying to replace it.

“If that was the case, the Chief Accountant would not have admitted that he found the said money in his drawer whilst I was away,” the plaintiff explained.

At that juncture, hearing was set till 1 February 2012