[Back]

Case No.:

(AC.Revision-355-196o)

Court:

Court of Appeal

Issue No.:

1960

Principles

·  Civil practice and procedure—Delay in payment of hearing fees—court’s discretion under Civil Justice Ordinance. s. 71

Judges should exercise their discretion under section 71 of, the Civil Justite Ordinance with reasonable indulgence towards litigants, unless the litigants arc trying to delay proceedings

Judgment

(COURT OF APPEAL)

MOHAMED EL SADDIG MOHAMED v. MIDDLE-EAST PLANTATION CO.

(AC.Revision-355-196o) 

Revision

Advocates: Ibrahim El Sheikh….. for Gaafar for applicant

                            El Sarraj for ……….. for respondent

December is, 1960. M. A. Abu Rannat C.J: —The facts of this case are short and simple. The plaintiff was employed by the defendants as a lorry driver for some years and claimed that he was wrongly dismissed by them. On July 12, 1960, he brought an action against the defendants claiming £S.150 as damages for wrongful dismissal. Action was allowed and the date for settlement of issues was fixed for August I, 1960. On August 1, 1960, the issues were settled and the date September 1, 1960, was fixed for hearing. On September 1, 1960, Advocate Ibrahim El Sheikh appeared for Advocate Gaafar who was representing the plaintiff. The defendants were represented by Advocate El Sarraj on behalf of Advocate. 

Mahgoub. Advocate Ibrahim El Sheikh stated that he did not receive a copy of the note showing the framed issues. The court made an order that as Advocate Gaafar received a copy of the settled issues, and that no payment of the hearing fees was made, the suit should be dismissed, and, awarded the defendants £S.7.500m/ms advocate costs. On September 7, 1960, the plaintiff applied for revision to the judge of the High Court on the ground that the reason for non-payment of hearing fees was due to the fact that defendants had offered settlement outside the court, and that defendants had applied for the addition of a fresh point at issue.

The learned Judge of the High Court dismissed the application sum marily on the ground that the application for adjournment was intended to delay the case. This applicat is against the decision of the Honourable the Judge of the. High Court Khartoum dismissing the applicant’s (plaintiff’s) application for revision. In our view this application must be allowed. The court is given discretion under section 71of the Civil Justice Ordinance to dispose of the suit in one of the modes directed in Chapter IX or may make such other order as it thinks fit. The court should generally act reasonably with indulgence to litigants unless they are trying to delay. In this particular case, there is an explanation that the defendants were making an offer for settlement and perhaps the hope for a settlement out side the court dissuaded the plaintiff from paying the hearing fees. Even if this is not true, the court may give the plaintiff time on terms as to costs.

It is therefore ordered that the order of the District Judge dated September 1,1960, as well as the decision of the Judge of the High Court dated October 9, 1960, be set aside, and it is further ordered that the hearing of the suit be proceeded with, No order is made as to costs.

AbdeJ Rahrnan El Nur P.1. —I concur.

                                                    (Application allowed)

* Court: M. A. Abu Rarmat C.J., Abdel Rahman Nur P.J