Msaada wa Case Law

CHUAKACHARA · 2016-06-20T16:59:23+00:00

Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v. West End Distributors Ltd [1969] E.A. 696 July 31, 1969. The following considered judgments were read: LAW, J.A.: The Suit out which this appeal arises began by a Plaint filed as long as ago as August 22, 1961. The defence, which included a counterclaim, was filed on February 15, 1962, and ‘the pleadings closed with a reply to the counter-claim filed on May 3, 1962. On June 8, 1962, the defendant obtained judgment on the counter-claim. Since then hearing dates for the trial of the plaintiff’s claim have been fixed on six occasions, and taken out on five occasions, sometimes on the plaintiff’s application and sometimes on that of the defendant. The final hearing date was fixed “by consent” on September 28, 1967, for February 26, 27, 28 and 29, 1968. The hearing in fact began on February 27, 1968. It was preceded by a so-called “preliminary objection” taken on behalf of the defendant, notice of whereof had been served on the plaintiff five days previously, asking that the suit be dismissed for want of prosecution “pursuant to the inherent and other powers of the court”. Mr. Khanna for the defendant was heard in support of this “preliminary objection”; Mr. Gautama for the plaintiff was not called upon to reply; and the trial judge ruled as follows: “Preliminary objection overruled for the reasons to be given later.” The Plaintiff then called his evidence, after which the further hearing of the suit was adjourned and for reasons which are not apparent was not resumed until nearly a year later on January 29, 1969. At some time before this date, it is not clear when, the reasons for overruling the preliminary objection were made to the parties although never read in open court. On January 29, 1969, Mr. Wilkinson, Q.C. who had been brought in by the defendant to lead Mr. Khanna, sought leave to adduce further argument in support of the preliminary objection. The learned judge refused to allow the matter to be re-opened; by consent of the parties the reasons for overruling the preliminary objection were then taken as having been read, whereupon Mr. Wilkinson applied for and obtained leave to appeal against that decision, but the judge refused to stay the further hearing of the suit pending a decision in the appeal. Mr. Wilkinson then obtained an adjournment on the ground that his principal witness was ill. The hearing was eventually resumed on April 14, 1969, when Mr. Gautama closed the plaintiff’s case. Mr. Wilkinson then raised yet another preliminary objection to the further hearing of the suit, this time…. ----- **This entire exciting decision (MUKISA BISCUIT’s case can easily be e-mailed to you, ASAP, at only a dollar, a Euro wherever you are in this world. And for only 2, 000/= Tshs if you are living in Tanzania. Contact: Advocate DENIS MARINGO, Esq.: dnmaringo@gmail.com ; Tel: 0719270067. Cases referred to: (i) Saldanha and Others v. Bhailal & Co. and Others [1968] E.A. 28 (ii)Mulji v. Jadavji [1963] E.A. 213 (iii)Rawal v. Mombasa Hardware Ltd (iv) Fitzpatrick v. Batger (v) Allen v. McAlpine (vi) Clough v. Clough [1968] 1 All E.R. 1179 (vii) Marlton v. Lee-Levitan [1968] 2 All E.R. 874 (viii) Gloria v. Sokoloff [1969] 1 All E.R. 204 (ix) Hogan v. Adrianwalla [1965] E.A. 118 (x) Mandavia v. Rattan Singh [1965] E.A. 118 (x) Baker v. Rush [1964] E.A. 602 Posted 9th January 2015 by BULICHEKA

Thread starter CHUAKACHARA
Start date Jun 20, 2016

CHUAKACHARA

JamiiForums uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

Accept Learn more…

Back

Top Bottom

Forums

New posts

Msaada wa Case Law

CHUAKACHARA

JF-Expert Member

Our Community

Regional Communities