Jul 14, 2017, 9:50 AM
Ramond Ceesay, Marketing Manager at the Gambia National Insurance Company, GNIC, on 23rd November 2010 testified against one Anthony Manell, former employee of GNIC, who sued the company at the industrial tribunal, claiming D384,000 for his total salary for 16 years.
Anthony Manell also claimed D300,000 for damages and Social Security contributions.
Ceesay told the court in his testimony that the defendant, GNIC, was incorporated in 1990 and that the plaintiff, Anthony Manell, was an employee of the defendant.
The witness said they had called the plaintiff to their office several times and addressed his attitude towards his work. He stated that the plaintiff had been warned several times, both verbally and in writing, about his conduct and the way he was carrying out his official duties.
"I have such written warnings here in court," he added, and the defence counsel then applied to tender the warning letters in bundles as exhibits.
The plaintiff then objected that he never signed for any warning letter.
However, the chairman of the industrial tribunal admitted the warning letters on grounds of relevance.
Counsel for the plaintiff, B.S. Conteh, at this juncture, entered the court and announced his appearance for the plaintiff, and urged the court to proceed because he was bereaved and would cross-examine the witness at the next adjournment date.
The witness went on to say that after warning the plaintiff, they invited him to a meeting by the management, and asked him to come with his representative, and that the invitation was done in writing. He added that the plaintiff did not come to the meeting, and that he wrote to them requesting for more time.
Ceesay further adduced that the meeting finally took place, and that the plaintiff came with a representative.
He posited that after the meeting, the defendant terminated the plaintiff’s service in writing. He revealed that the plaintiff was offered his full terminal benefits, but he did not take them.
Hawa Ceesay-Sabally then applied to tender the termination letter and another letter on the terminal benefits of the plaintiff, as well as a photocopy of the cheque with computation of the benefits at the bottom of the letter.
However, the plaintiff told the court that he would not accept D10,000 as his benefits after 25 years of service.
The witness, Ramond Ceesay, narrated further that the defendant does not owe the plaintiff D384,000 for his salary, D300,000 for damages and social security contributions.
He finally told the court that the defendant does not owe the plaintive anything.
The case was adjourned to 2nd December 2010, for the plaintiff’s counsel to cross-examine the witness.