Civil Procedure-s-Judge's function-Duty 01 judge 10 make full examination
01 plaintiff's claim

Civil Procedure=-Witness-c-lnterested party=Competence
Evidence-Interested party-Competence as a witness

The first plaintiffs action in the Shendi district court was dismissed on
the ground that he failed to prove his claim. The district judge, however,
had refused to hear the first plaintiff's chief witness because he was inter-
ested in the result, and had treated the other evidence somewhat cursorily.
The first plaintiff applied for revision of the district court's judgement.

Held: (i) A witness who has an interest in the result of an action is
nevertheless a competent witness in that action, and his evidence may be of
considerable value to the court.

(ii) A court has a duty to bear a competent witness, so that a refusal
to hear him may constitute grounds for directing a re-hearing of the case.
(iii) A court has a duty to make a full enquiry into the plaintiff's
claim. In particular, the court must see that witnesses are properly exam-
ined, so that the details of the claim are established as fully as possible.

Revision

The relevant facts, as they appear from the judgement are as
follows:

The first plaintiff, by a judgement in a previous case, had
been granted an extension to the land he already owned, which ex-
tension included land which was claimed by defendants. The first
plaintiff had sown this land, assisted by his local agent, but later
the crop had been lifted. The local agent told the first plaintiff that
this had been done by the defendants.v- The first plaintiff and his
agent therefore sued the defendants for damages for trespass to land in
the Shendi district court, which dismissed the action on the ground that
the claim had not been proved. The district court, however, refused
to hear the evidence of second plaintiff (the local agent) because he
was personally interested in the result of the action, and his evidence
would, it was said, therefore be of little or no value, even though he

* Court: Harrison J.

was an eyewitness to some of the relevant events. Moreover, the
court's treatment of the evidence that had been called had been some-
what cursory. The first plaintiff applied for revision of the district
court's judgement.

March 21, 1940. Harrison J.: After reviewing the facts men-
tioned above, the learned judge proceeded:

Such is the background of this case. I now tum to the latter
itself. The court below found that the plaintiff had not proved his
allegations and in consequence dismissed his claim.

I agree that the court's decision was right on the evidence given,
but I am also of the opinion that the plaintiff failed not because his
story was untrue but because he could not get the witnesses to tell the
court the truth. There are also serious reasons for criticism of the con-
duct of the case.

In the first place the court never heard the plaintiff's chief witness
at all, his agent Mohammed Mustafa. The plaintiff has told me that
he wished to call him but that the district judge told him that as he
was his agent his evidence would not be independent and therefore
of no value. I must believe that there was some misunderstanding.
At any rate Mohammed Mustafa's evidence is obviously of the utmost
importance for he is alleged to have been an actual eyewitness of the
trespass, and this case must be reheard if only for that reason.

Secondly, insufficient trouble was taken to ascertain the full de-
tails of the plaintiff', claim on plaint. Such details as to how, when
and by whom the . zop was sown, which are set out above, were not
known to the cou '-1. The date on which the crop disappeared, its
size and' condition on that date, and what steps Mohammed Mustafa
then took are all ( i equal importance, but are all unrecorded.

Thirdly, the court failed properly to examine those eyewitnsses
of the damage v hom it did see, and it should if necessary have called
the Sheikh of E andi and his understudy who accompanied the Omda
on his visit to the island.

If there is one thing of which the riverain natives are capable,
it is an ability to tell you what a particular piece of river soil will
produce, what should be sown on it and what sort of result must be
anticipated. I therefore feel quite certain that the Omda and those
who accompanied him formed such an opinion and can, if-pressed,
give the court such data as will enable it to form a reasonable idea,