Bank of Sierra Leone v Ahmed T Alghali (SC CIV APP 2 of 2005) [2007] SLSC 5 (9 November 2007)

‘ SC.CIV.APP.2/2005 ___ INTHE SUPREME COURT OF SIERRA LEONE : : BANK OF SIERRALEONE - APPELLANT ; AND \ . AHMAD T.ALGHALI — -. RESPONDENT

Coram

Hon.Mr. Justice G. Semega-Janneh Jsc Hon.Mrs. Justice V.A.D. Wright JSC Hon.Mr. Justice M.E.T Thompson Jsc . Hon. Ms. S. Koroma JA Hon. Mr.Justice A.N.B. Stronge JA . JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON THE 9 DAY OF NOVEMBER 2007 ! E.Pabs-Gamnon Esq., for the Appellant J.B. Jenkins-Johnston Esq., for the Respondent V.AWRIGHT. JSC:

‘The Respondent brought an action against the Appellant that the purported termination of the Respondent's services with effect from 1 August 2000 as stated in the letter of termination was unlawful, null and void since the Appellants right to grant an extension of tenure of office to the staff beyond the age of 55 years was hot properly exercised.

| The Respondent had been employed by the Appellant for 27 years and al the time of his termination of employment he was section Head, Currency Managetnent. On the 4" April 2000 the Appellant wrote to him informing him of hs retirement due on the 7" July 2000. The Respondent claimed that although a he was given his entitlements he was not given his pension which was due hin A con ins retirement y

a} 2 +! The grounds of Appeal are: (1) ‘That the Court of Appeal filed to consider and give due Weight to the available written and oral evidence Particularly that Of the Plaintiff P.W.1 when it held that there was no ‘evidence to ‘Support the contention that the Appellant had not been guilty of any misconduct. 2) That the Court of Appeal erred in aw when it held that specific charges i must be drawn, ‘UP against the Respondent and Proven before disciplinary measures are taken.

(8) The Court of Appeal erred in law when it held that having regard to the circumstances of the case the Appellant had ‘not complied with the terms of the Staff Rules and Regulations and that the termination of the Respondent was thus illegal. (@) That the judgment of the Court of Appeal be reversed (©) Any further or other relief as to the Supreme Court ‘may seem fi By @ Wit of Summons dated the 9! day of August 2000 issued by the | precoanaes against the Appellant claiming inter alia a declaration that the ‘erninaton of employment by the Appellant was null and void and that he shou ‘be granted entitlements owed to him under the Banks Pension Trust Scheme. the Resporicnt gave evidence that he had worked for the Bank sinoo 1073 #8 a he wos: supposed to proceed to retirement ae serving the ang

aie

2 for 27 years,, A Defence and Counterclaim to the action was filed on behalf of the = ‘Appeliant alleging negligence on the part of the Respondent thus causing the Appellant loss to the value of Le80,000,000 and contending that termination of he Respondent was lawful, thereby claiming the same amount by way of counterclaim i ‘The matter-was heard and on the 3" October 2002 by the Learned High Court ludge who gave judgment as follows; “That on the evidence I cannot grant relies claimed by the plaintiff, | also find evidence insufficient evidence to allow the counterclaim ofthe Defendant excepting this. | give judgment for the defendants. Each party will pay it costs”. : \Leatmed Gounset for the Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal and tne grounds of Appeal were as follows:

(1) That the Leamed Trial Judge totally failed, and/or neglected, and/ox omitted to properly or adequately consider the case for the Plaintif Notwithstanding the evidence led before her, the submissions of Counsel and the several authorities cited, leading her to the erroneous conclusion that “ooccsceOm the evidence 1 cannot grant relief claimed by Pati" ‘

(2) That the Leamed Trial Judge failed to properly evaluate the evidence led ‘3 before hor including the exhibits temered, but ralher merely repealed the

} 2M

contents of the pleadings, the evidence and some submissions of Counsel : in almost the whole of her said judgment excepting the last page a thereof.

(8) That the Learned Trial Judge did not consider AT ALL. whether or not the Plaintiff_was entitled to or qualified to receive a pension from the Defendants after twenty-seven (27) years service according to the Defendant's own records, which was a major and substantial part of the Plaintiff's case.

(4) That the judgment was against the weight of the evidence.

Judgment was delivered on the 19 day of November upholding the Appeal of the Appellant.

By Notice of Appeal dated the 12" day of January 2005 the Appellant ‘aopeaied to the Supreme Cour.

{At the hearing Counsel for the Appellant relied on the dicta of Livesey Luke J in 779 CA. Gittens-Stronge Vs. Sierra Leone Brewery unreported, said * that if tne Employer gives notice for the prescribed period under the contract of Employinent or pays the equivalent salary in ieu of such notice the termination is lawful and the employee will have no remedy in law’ fe said that the Appeltant made payment due to the Respondent in accordance wit section 11(b) of Staff Rules and Regulations, and that the investigation was! cantied out on the payrnent of the (Le80,000,000.00) eighty milion cheque from

‘ Union Trust Bank. The junior officials in the Bank thought this was irregular as

The pages read for this report end here. The judgment continues in the PDF.