Standard Bank Ltd. v. John Bibiano Fernandes, Civ. Case 51-D-65, 9/9/67, Hamlyn J
Plaintiff sued defendant on a secure debt on account in the name of defendant’s wife, a bankrupt. The trial apparently commenced before the Acting Chief Justice, who heard the plaintiff’s case. For reasons not further specified in this judgment, he refused to continue to hear the defendant’s case, his action being “due solely to certain acts of the defendant himself.” He was replaced by Justice Hamlyn. Defendant moved for a trial de novo, on the grounds that Justice Hamalyn had not observed the demeanor of the plaintiff’s witness.
Held: “If …….. any hardship fell upon the defendant by reason of my acting under the provisions of Order 18 rule 10(10) of the 1966 Civil Procedure Code, the defendant had himself to thank for this. The plaintiff’s witness’s where- about are now unknown and it clearly would place the plaintiff in great difficulty had I acceded to the defendant’s application.” Judgment for plaintiff.
0 Comments
PLACE YOUR COMMENT HERE
WARNING: DO NOT USE ABUSIVE LANGUAGE BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST THE LAW.
THE COMMENTS OF OUR READERS IS NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY.