May 16, 2013, 10:25 AM
The Principal of St. Peter’s
The plaintiff, Lamin S. Sanneh, filed a suit against his former employer, seeking relief for the recovery of D157,896 being three years, seven months, as damages for unlawful termination of his services by the defendant.
During cross-examination, the plaintiff asked the witness to show who gave him the authority to terminate his service; the principal, in response, said it was his terms of reference that gave him the power to do so.
Asked whether he (the principal) gave him any appointment letter, the witness responded in the positive, saying that when he met with the plaintiff, he did not accept to put him in the afternoon shift.
He said he told him there was no vacancy for the afternoon spot.
“At the end of every year we will evaluate the situation,” said Touban.
Asked when the afternoon shift came into existence, the principal said it was in 2009.
Further quizzed by the plaintiff on what terms he gave him the afternoon shift, Touban told the tribunal it was the same terms as on the appointment letter.
“If the condition of the afternoon appointment was the same as the morning, why did you fail to put the afternoon in writing?’’ the plaintiff enquired.
The witness said that his afternoon shift job came two years after he joined them, noting that he was on confirmation and his appointment would come after a year.
When the plaintiff put it to the principal whether he would agree with him that he terminated him wrongfully, the principal denied that.
“What was the role of the school board with regard to appointment and termination?” asked the former teacher. The witness, in reply, said the board governed him on how to run the school.
Asked by the plaintiff why the board did not sign his termination letter, the principal said the board decided what to give him (the principal) and for themselves.
Hearing continues on 16 July 2012.