Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Prime Bank In Legal Tussle With Ex- Employee
NEWS BANJUL THE GAMBIA (MB)- Prime Bank Gambia Limited has been dragged to the Industrial Tribunal by its former Treasury dealer, Mr. Emmanuel George, over alleged dismissal causing damages and breach of contract.
Meanwhile, the case, which has been ongoing at the Industrial Tribunal in the Kanifing Magistrates’ Court complex before Magistrate Clement Nkumbe Ngube failed to proceed on 2nd March 2011 due to the absence of the plaintiff’s lawyer, Mr. Moses Richards.
After the case was called, the plaintiff has informed the Court that his lawyer was not present and that he called him but his phone was unreachable. Magistrate Ngube then asked the plaintiff to make sure his lawyer is available on the next adjournment date. He further told him that he has the right to keep informing his lawyer about the sittings date of his case.
The plaintiff is claiming from the Bank three years basic salary for what he claims to be an unlawful dismissal, as well as a bonus entitlement for trading period with an interest of 25% per annum from July 2009 to the date of judgement and a statutory interest of 4% to the date of final judgement. The particulars also stated that the plaintiff is a banker by profession and was employed at the defendant bank in July 2009 as Treasury Dealer with a job description for same. It further claimed that by December 2009 notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff had almost met the target set for him at D2.7 million, the Bank’s management started to interfere with the plaintiff’s work, contrary to his job description resulting to an exchange of emails and letters between the plaintiff and Managing Directors.
Due to the management’s continuous interference with the plaintiff’s work, it alleged also stated that he tendered a resignation letter having sought employment with another local Bank. It further said that following the meeting with the plaintiff to discuss his concern and decision to resign, management wrote to the plaintiff confirming it decision to allow him to operate freely within his job description-which the plaintiff accepted but failed to proceed.
The plaintiff’s solicitor, according to the particulars of the claim, wrote a conciliatory letter to the defendant indicting his displeasure in the ways and manners that he had been dismissed.
Rather, to remedy their unlawful act, the defendant solicitor wrote back defiantly insisting that defendant’s action was unlawful, it was disclosed in the particulars.