Case No.:

(AC-Revision-279-1959)

Court:

Court of Appeal

Issue No.:

1960

Principles

·  Civil practice and procedure—Application to court by post—Personal attendance

An application for re-opening a case where there has been a default decree must be submitted to the court by the applicant in person cir by his pleader.

Judgment

(COURT OF APPEAL)

SUDAN CO-OPERATIVE UNION LIMITED v. THEO. G. MICHAELIDIS

(AC-Revision-279-1959)

 Revision

Advocate: Amin El Tahir El Shibli ……..for applicants

January 25, 1960. M. I. El Nur I.: —I fail to see in what way the order by the Province Judge dismissing the application by applicants to set aside the default decree issued against them on July 8, 1959, was wrong. This case was instituted by respondent against applicants in Juba on June 10 1959 The date July 8, 1959, was fixed for its hearing and summons was duly served on applicants who instead of appearing in person or by duly authorised agent, wrote to the court asking for postponement of hearing on the grounds that their accounts are under auditing by the Auditor-General and because the management of the union was taken over by new personnel. Respondent did not accept adjournment on those grounds and the Province Judge rightly issued a default decree against applicants after hearing of his evidence. This was on July 8, 1959 the default decree having been served on applicants; they applied through their advocate El Shibli o set it aside. The advocate did not go to Juba himself to submit the application but posted it to the court from Khartoum enclosing a remit tance for PT.50 fee on the application. No action was taken on it as he did not appear in person to pursue it. On October 12, 1959, the learned advocate sent a reminder. On December 7. 1959, the learned Province Judge made the following order:

Court M. A. Abu Rannat C.J.. M. I. El Nur J.

This application for reopening had been pending since July 25, 1959, without the appearance of the judgment debtors or thf’ir advo cate to present the application. The application to dispense with the appearance cannot be entertained. The application should therefore be dismissed.”

On December 8, 1959,this dismissal was con by letter to applicants’ advocate. Hence was this application for revision.

In my view the learned Province Judge was quite correct in dismissing this application. I do not know of a practice allowing courts to entertain applications sent by post and dispensing with the personal attendance of applicants. The law is that such an application should be s to the court in person or by his pleader. I would have been more sympathetic with applicants if their failure to attend hearing of the original civil suit in consequence of which the default decree was issued was for any good reason. They simply asked for postponement of hearing because their accounts were being audited. It would have taken them no long time to check whether the claim by plaintiff (respondent) was correct or not.

In my view therefore this application should, subject to the agreement of the Chief Justice, be summarily dismissed.

M. A. Abu Rannat C.J. —I agree. Application is summarily dismissed.

                                                           (Applicution summarily dismissed)