This is an application for rescission of a judgment which was granted in default (in chambers) on 5th August 2011 and the reasons were handed down in February 2012. The matter was dealt with as an unopposed matter. This was because opposition papers which were timeously served by the applicants on the respondent were not on record. The matter should have been clearly an opposed matter. The judgment was granted in error. The applicant was therefore not in wilful default. More
The Appellant was employed by the Respondent as Maintenance Clerk. He was arraigned before a disciplinary authority on 29th of January, 2008 facing two offences under the relevant Code viz. Offence 4: Refusing duty or legitimate order (means deliberate failure to follow legitimate order.) Offence 13: Neglect of duty or responsibility (means carelessly and intentionally ignoring one’s duty or responsibility). More
At the hearing the respondents were now represented. Previously they had filed their papers in person. A number of things had been done wrong. Among others, the notice of opposition had been signed and filed by the first respondent purportedly for and on behalf of the rest of the respondents. The respondents had also filed a fourth set of affidavits without the leave of the court or judge as required by Order 32 r 235 of the Rules of this court. The one affidavit was titled “3RD RESPONDING (sic) AFFIDAVIT”. The other affidavits by some of the respondents were all... More
This is an exception to the plaintiff’s claim for damages for defamation on the ground that the words complained of carry no reference to the plaintiff and that the declaration makes no proper allegations of facts which would enable the ordinary reader to identify the plaintiff as the person defamed. The background to the dispute between the parties is as follows: More
