Gratolite general Dealers v Limbe Leaf Tobacco Malawi LTD (Civil Cause 526 of 2001) [2004] MWHC 104 (26 August 2004)
The action was struck out because the plaintiff's legal practitioner lacked a practicing licence at the time of commencement, and there was no objection from the plaintiff's side.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] MWHC 104
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Gratolite General Dealers; Defendant: Limbe Leaf Tobacco Malawi Ltd
- Court
- High Court of Malawi
- Jurisdiction
- Malawi
- Case Number
- Civil Cause 526 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Application to Strike Out Action
- Outcome
- Action struck out
- Legal Topics
- Striking Out Actions, Practicing Licence of Advocate, Costs
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Gratolite General Dealers
Plaintiff
Limbe Leaf Tobacco Malawi Ltd
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application to Strike Out Action
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the action should be struck out due to plaintiff's advocate lacking a practicing licence at commencement
- 2 Who should bear the costs of the proceedings
Ratio Decidendi
The action was struck out because the plaintiff's legal practitioner lacked a practicing licence at the time of commencement, and there was no objection from the plaintiff's side.
Court Disposition
Action struck out
Orders
- The action is struck out as prayed for.
- The legal practitioner for the plaintiff shall bear the costs of the proceedings, to be taxed if not agreed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAWI PRINCIPAL REGISTRY CIVIL CAUSE NO. 526 OF 2001 BETWEEN: GRATOLITE GENERAL DEALERS........ccccovumniinnnnnnn. PLAINTIFF AND LIMBE LEAF TOBACCO MALAWI LTD ......cccccvuuune DEFENDANT CORAM: TEMBO, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Kauka, Counsel for the Plaintiff (absent) Kazoka, Counsel for the defendant ORDER This is this court’s order on the defendant’s application to strike out this action on the ground that the legal practitioner for the plaintiff had no practicing licence at the date of commencement of this action. The application was not contested by the plaintiff’s legal practitioners who were absent at the hearing. Before the hearing of this application Phoya and Associates undertook to discontinue this action but had not done so at the fully date indemnified by the plaintiff’s counsel or the plaintiff. of hearing of this application. The defence sought to be Since the plaintiff’s counsel himself undertook to discontinue this action this court is left with the impression that he does not object to the instant application and more so by reason of his absence. And so this court strikes out the instant action as prayed for. Counsel for the plaintiff appears to have known that he ought not to have proceeded without a licence herein but nevertheless proceeded to incur costs on behalf of the plaintiff. It appears to this court that this is an appropriate case in which the plaintiff’s legal practitioner should bear costs of these proceedings. is therefore ordered that the legal practitioner for the plaintiff bear the It costs of these proceedings to be tfied if not agreed. Made in Chambers at Blantyre.......7.. ... August 2004.