Mar 16, 2016, 10:21 AM
Plaintiff Emmanuel Ina George recently ended his testimony under cross-examination before the Industrial Tribunal, presided over by Magistrate Ngube.
Mr George instituted claims against Prime Bank for a declaration that the dismissal by the defendant of his services was unlawful, among others.
Testifying under cross-examination, the plaintiff revealed that he had a transaction with a customer in that the customer opened an account with the defendant’s bank.
The customer left the bank with foreign currency and Gambian dalasi, he adduced, saying he (the plaintiff) was authorised by the bank to create a format for cross-currency transaction.
When given a document by the defendant’s counsel to examine it for recognition, the plaintiff revealed that it was contract document on transaction where he gave the bank a cash of US dollars, and the bank credited the account with it.
The defendant’s counsel applied to tender the document and was admitted as exhibit.
“At the bank, there has never been a head of treasury,” said the plaintiff, stating that he was reporting to the managing director, in the absence of the acting managing director.
According to him, he was not warned in audience prior to this transaction he (the plaintiff) carried out.
However, he maintained that he was only warned on the day he was invited to the disciplinary meeting and was questioned in connection with the transaction.
Asked about the particular customer, the plaintiff informed the tribunal that the customer was his friend but they had never worked together.
Further under cross-examination, the witness adduced that he insisted in the disciplinary hearing that it was a two-way transaction.
He said it was a cross-currency deal and purchase as well as a sale from US dollar to Gambian dalasi.
Asked about the type of currency the customer brought to the bank for the said transaction, the plaintiff said the customer came in with Euros and left the bank with Gambian dalasi.
He denied being dishonest, acting without authority; notwithstanding, the bank dismissed him and terminated his service as per his contract.
He concluded by telling the court that he was entitled to his claim against the defendant, Prime Bank (