IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU
(Civil Jurisdiction)
Civil Case No.112 of 2000
BETWEEN:
lass="MsoNoMsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
JAMES EZRA LESSA
Applicant
AND:
EDMOND RORY
First Respondent
AND:
THE DIRECTOR OF LANpan>
Second Respondent
THE DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
Third Respondent
AND:
THE MINISTER OF LANDS
Fourth Respondent
Coram: R. Marum MBE J.
Mward Nalial for the
Applicant
Mr. Jack Kilu for the First
Respondent
p clasoNormalormal" style="yle="text-align: justify; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
APTION TO STRIKE OUT
class="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
The matter was adjourned on 16th
Februa01 for trial on 5th and 6th July 2001 at
9.00, about five months. Both Counsels appear this morning, and the
plaintiff�s counsel seeks adjournment
of the trial, as the plaintiff was not
ready, as he was in Malekula for his father�s death and by the counsels
letter
of the 2-7-2001 the plaintiff was seeking adjournment, no affidavit
in support of such difficulties from the plaintiff to support
his
application.
class="MsoNoMsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
This Court issued directive
orders on 4th December 2000 and the matter tter was adjourned to 16th
February 2001. The defendant appeared on the 16th of February but
applied to seek another lawyer to represent him. No objection Was made to
that adjournment, and the matter
was adjourned to the 5th and 6th
July 2001 for trial. On 16th February 2001 Nalial informed the
Court that 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendant have
not filed any defence pursuant to Order of 4th December 2000. The
Court noted that Order of 4th December 2000 remains an order of
the Court. This morning Nalial informed the Court that the defendant wrote
to him to
provide better particulars. Nalial did not supply reasons being
that he could not receive instructions from the plaintiff.
However, what I
understand was that no direction given by the Court for the plaintiff to
supply better particulars to
the defendant and order of 4th
December 2000 was complied with and the matter was on for trial today. The
letter of the 2nd of July requesting urgent adjournment was not
necessary at all as by this time the plaintiff was already in Port Vila to
run his case.
p class="MsoBoMsoBodyText" style="margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1">
It is impo to note that
when a trial has been set all parties including the court must work towk towards
the trial date,
unless something has arisen beyond the control of one party
making the trial not to start, than such reasons can be accommodated
for an
adjournment, otherwise, the trial must start as adjourned. There is nothing
whatsoever, to convince me today for
any adjournment and the trial must
continue. As the plaintiff had no satisfactory reasons for an adjournment, I
will
only conclude that the plaintiff was not prepared for this trial and
grant the applicant to strike out the plaintiff writ of
summons. Therefore,
the Writ of Summons is strike out. In striking out the summons, the
plaintiff is not prejudice to
file another summons. Kilu seek for the
defendant counterclaim to be struck out also, and grant the application to
strike
out the counter/claim. On striking out of the writ of summons and
statement of claim and the counter/claim, Mr. Kilu applied
for cost. After
hearing counsels, I order the plaintiff to pay cost to the defendant to be
taxed if not agreed.
Dated at Port Vila, this 5th
day of July 2001.
R. MARUM MBE
JUDGE
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/vu/cases/VUSC/2001/65.html
