John Charles Njie, former Pro-Pag executive director, on 30 May 2012, testified before Magistrate Ngube at the Kanifing Industrial Tribunal against Pro-Pag, whom he claimed had terminated his employment wrongfully.
This development followed the application made by Lawyer Mendy, who is throwing her weight behind the plaintiff, John Charles Njie, for the tribunal to disregard the appearance of the state counsel who earlier announced he was representing Pro-Pag, the defendant.
Lawyer Mendy argued that the state had nothing to do with the defendant and did not have any locus in the case.
The state counsel, in response, said it was the choice of the defendant to be represented by any counsel.
Magistrate Ngube, who attentively listened to the counsels, finally perused through their arguments and ruled in favour of the plaintiff.
He therefore urged the representative of the defendant to look for another lawyer.
When the case resumed on 30 May 2012, Lawyer Ngui Janneh told the tribunal she was representing the defendant.
Lawyer Mendy led the plaintiff, John Charles Njie, to tell the tribunal why he felt that his former employer terminated his employment wrongfully.
The plaintiff then got into the witness box and told the tribunal he knew the defendant.
He stated that in 2003, he was part of the setting-up of the organisation as a founding member.
He adduced further that he was made a board member of the group.
Njie posited that from June to December 2006, he was acting as an adviser to the group, adding that in January 2007, he was appointed administrator and Human Resources Manager for three years on a written contract.
Lawyer Mendy applied to tender the said letter or contract, and the defendant’ counsel did not raise any objection.
The letter was admitted as exhibit.
Still testifying, the plaintiff told the tribunal that in September 2008, the director resigned from the organisation and he was mandated by the board to act as a director until such a time the board would appoint a director.
He further posited that in June 2010, he was appointed as director, adding that the position was advertised and he applied.
He said he was appointed as at 1 June 2010, after he went for an interview, stating that the application for the position was in writing.
At this juncture, Lawyer Mendy applied to tender the said application letter and an offer of employment letter. The defendant’s counsel did not object to the tendering of the said documents which were admitted by the tribunal.
The plaintiff also told the tribunal that he took up the said appointment as executive director and his gross salary was D48, 000 per month.
He had an official vehicle allocated to him, he testified, saying they had pension benefit allowance but during the course of employment, they had financial constraints and they decided to suspend payment.
The case was adjourned till 6 June 2012, after Lawyer Mendy had told the tribunal that her colleague, the defendant’s counsel, had another matter at the High Court.
