#Article (Archive)

Plaintiff cross-examined in Prime Bank case

Jun 27, 2011, 1:36 PM | Article By: Yusuf Ceesay

Plaintiff Emmanuel Ina George, who instituted claims against the defendant, Prime Bank (Gambia) Ltd, on 20 June 2011testified under cross-examination before the Industrial Tribunal of the Kanifing Magistrates’ Court.

The plaintiff’s claim among others is a declaration that the dismissal by the defendant of the plaintiff was unlawful.

Testifying under cross-examination, the plaintiff told the court that a clause of his contract provides for termination, adding that he was invited by the defendant to a hearing.

He said he wrote to the defendant asking for postponement of the date scheduled for the hearing but later attended the hearing.

Asked whether after the hearing he went back to work, the plaintiff said he did not go back to work because he had been issued with a termination letter.

He said there was a day he did a transaction when the head of finance, Ms Williams, was out of office; therefore could not seek her authority to do so.

“By virtue of my position, I am aware that I am regulatory to the Central Bank of The Gambia,” he also told the court.

When asked whether the particular customer he was dealing with opened an account with the defendant bank for the said transaction, the plaintiff replied in the affirmative.

When shown a document by the defendant’s counsel, the plaintiff told the court that he recognised the document as it was about a transaction with the customer he was dealing with.

At that juncture, the defendant’s counsel applied to tender the said document, which was admitted and marked as an exhibit.

Further testifying, Mr George adduced that the customer he was dealing with opened an account with the defendant’s bank on 22 September 2009.

The account opening document was also tendered by the defendant’s counsel and was subsequently admitted and marked as exhibit.

The plaintiff revealed that the conversion from Euro to USD did take place, adding that it was a transaction to sell122.835 euros.

The transaction detail of the 122.835 euros was also tendered without objection by the plaintiff’s counsel, Moses Richards.

When quizzed about the customer he was dealing with, the plaintiff said he was dealing with the managing director of a licensed foreign exchange bureau called MA Finance Ltd.

He denied allegation that the customer he was dealing with, who opened an account with the bank, is not a licensed foreign exchange trader.

“I am supposed to report directly to the head of treasury but since there was none, I report directly to the MD,” the plaintiff stated.

Asked whether he was aware that job description of position in the bank are all regulated by the Central Bank , who even authorizes signatures, the plaintiff replied in the negative, adding that he was only aware of authorised signatures.

The list of authorised signatures of the defendant’s bank indentified by the plaintiff was also tendered and admitted as exhibit.

When told that having been not an authorised signatory of the bank, he should not have signed defence Exhibit B2, in reply the plaintiff said: “It is my right.”

He testified that he recognised Exhibit 5AB, saying they are licensed dealers finance documents.

He adduced that the aforesaid document was on transactions and the last transaction was dated in July 2010.

The plaintiff adduced that the purchase date indicator was for a transaction for the purchase of 122.835 euro with Gambian dalasi.

The chairman of the tribunal, Magistrate Ngube, subsequently adjourned the case until 27 June 2011.