The case of Pamela Davies v. Council of Legal Education revolves around the termination of the Plaintiff’s employment and whether the conditions of service for the administrative staff of the Sierra Leone Law School supersede the provisions of the National Social Security and Insurance Trust Act 2001 (NASSIT Act).
Pamela Davies was appointed Assistant Director of the Sierra Leone Law School on September 2, 2014. On November 2, 2022, she received a letter from the Sierra Leone Law School informing her of her compulsory retirement effective November 9, 2022, upon reaching the age of 60. Davies contested this retirement age, claiming that her contract stipulated a retirement age of 65.
The defendant, the Council of Legal Education, filed an application asking the court to determine whether the conditions of service, which set the retirement age at 65, could supersede Section 39(1) of the NASSIT Act, which sets the retirement age at 60 years for those paid from the consolidated fund
The legal issues involved in the case include whether the conditions of service for the administrative staff of the Sierra Leone Law School, which set the retirement age at 65, can supersede section 39 (1) the NASSIT Act, which sets the retirement age at 60 and whether the conditions of service apply when the employee is paid from the consolidated fund.
Court’s Analysis
In his decision dated June 3rd 2024, Justice Unisa Kamara reviewed the affidavits and submissions from both parties, focusing on contract principles and the intentions of the parties involved. He noted that -:
“When dealing with issues like this, the court is concerned to find the intention of the parties and it does this by identifying the meaning of the relevant words in light of (1) the natural and ordinary meaning of those words (ii) the overall purpose of the documents (iii) any other provision of the document (iv) the facts known or assumed by the parties at the time that the document was executed and (v) common sense but (b) ignoring subjective evidence of any party’s intentions.”
The court highlighted the following points – firstly, the employment contract and conditions of service were agreed upon by both parties, thus binding upon them. Secondly, the NASSIT Act provides that an old-age pension is payable at 60 years, but it does not directly govern the terms of employment or retirement age of the Sierra Leone Law School, which is an institution created by statute. The National Social Security and Insurance Trust Act No.5 of 2001 provides in section 39 (1) as follows: ‘An old age pension is payable when a member attains the age of 60 years and where the member has paid or been credited with contributions of a minimum of one hundred and eighty months.'”
Third, the historical context showed that other employees of the Law School had similar disputes resolved in favour of the conditions of service, not the NASSIT Act.
Ruling
The court concluded that the conditions of service for the administrative staff of the Sierra Leone Law School, stipulating a retirement age of 65, do not supersede the NASSIT Act. However, these conditions were applicable and binding in the context of Pamela Davies’ employment. The court found that her termination at the age of 60 was unlawful, as her contract stipulated a retirement age of 65. The Learned Judge pointed out –
“The Plaintiff/Respondent was employed by virtue of an Act of Parliament (Council of Legal Education Act 1989) which empowers Council through section 21 ‘to appoint such officers as are deemed necessary by the Council for the proper discharge of its function upon such terms and conditions of service as the Council may determine.’ At the time of appointment and throughout her stay at the Council, Plaintiff was bound by these terms and conditions of service and it would be unfair and unjust for her employer not to be bound by it when it was the employer that drafted the terms and conditions of service.”
Consequently, Justice Unisa Kamara declared that Pamela Davies was unlawfully terminated. He awarded special damages for unlawful termination amounting to Le 2,170,673.59, interest on the total sum of Le 2,170,673.59 plus Le 1,901.39 from the date of unlawful termination to the date of payment, general damages and damages for pain, suffering, distress, and humiliation to be assessed. He also awarded costs to the Plaintiff.
The court’s decision underscores the importance of honouring contractual terms agreed upon by the parties, even when statutory provisions like the NASSIT Act exist. This ruling sets a precedent in balancing statutory retirement provisions with specific employment contract conditions within statutory bodies.
The Plaintiff was represented in this case by A.C. Thompson of Wright &Co. and the Defendant’s Counsel was E. Sarkoh.
