[1927] EACA 8
The court held that the suit had not been set down for hearing by the plaintiff within the meaning of Order XXII, Rule 2. The issuance of summons and filing of defence did not amount to 'taking any other proceeding' nor did it constitute setting the suit down for hearing. Therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1927] EACA 8
- Parties
- Plaintiff: M. P. Smith and two others; Defendant: Engela Wessels
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Civil Case No. 48 of 1927
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Discontinuance
- Outcome
- suit discontinued by plaintiff
- Judges
- Pickering J
- Legal Topics
- Withdrawal of Suit, Adjustment of Suit, Setting Down for Hearing
- 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
M. P. Smith and two others
Plaintiff
Engela Wessels
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Discontinuance
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff was entitled to discontinue the suit after summons had been issued and served but before the suit was set down for hearing.
- 2 Whether the act of filing a plaint or issuing a summons constitutes 'taking any other proceeding' under Order XXII, Rule 1.
- 3 Whether the suit had been set down for hearing within the meaning of Order XXII, Rule 2.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the suit had not been set down for hearing by the plaintiff within the meaning of Order XXII, Rule 2. The issuance of summons and filing of defence did not amount to 'taking any other proceeding' nor did it constitute setting the suit down for hearing. Therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to discontinue the suit by filing a notice of discontinuance under Order XXII, Rule 1. The discontinuance was effective as of 20th October, and the defendant was entitled to lodge his bill of costs up to and including the receipt of the notice. Costs for the appearance in court on 26-10-27 were to be borne by the defendant.
Court Disposition
suit discontinued by plaintiff
Orders
- The suit was discontinued by the plaintiff as of 20th October.
- The defendant may lodge his bill of costs up to and including the receipt of the notice of discontinuance.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
6 paragraphs
Before PICKERING, J.
## M. P. SMITH AND TWO OTHERS n.
## ENGELA WESSELS. C. C. $48/1927$ .
- Civil Procedure Rules, 1927-Order 22, withdrawal and adjustment of suit. - Held: -That although a Summons has been issued and served on the defendant as provided in Order 5, Rule 1, (1) (b), the suit had not<br>been set down for hearing by the plaintiff in the manner con-<br>templated in Order 9, Rule 10, and that the Plaintiff was therefore at liberty to discontinue the suit.
ORDER.—This matter was argued before me at considerable length when I was on circuit and I regret the delay in communicating a ruling to the parties. In this suit the plaintiff filed a suit by presenting a plaint in a District Registry and as is provided by Order V, Rule 1 (1) $(b)$ , a summons was issued and served on the defendant ordering him to appear and answer the claim on a named day. Under Order VIII, Rule 1, the Court required the defendant to file his defence within a prescribed time. The defendant lodged his defence, whereupon after negotiation the plaintiff filed a notice of discontinuance. The plaintiff claims that he was entitled to file such a notice and that he in fact did so under Order XXII, Rule 1. The defendant's advocate refused to allow the suit to be taken out of the list of the suits to be dealt with at the Eldoret Sessions. $H_{\alpha}$ contends that when a plaintiff has caused a summons to be issued under Order V, Rule 1 (1) (b), that by reason of Order IX, Rule 11, the suit must be taken to have been set down for hearing by the plaintiff. I fully recognize the difficulty of reconciling phrases in our local rules with a position which is regular under these rules but which was never contemplated by the men who drafted and which could of course never arise under the Rules of the Supreme Court in England. I propose to answer the question propounded to me by making two assertions. The words in Order XXII, Rule 1, "before taking any other proceeding " must refer to some act subsequent to the institution of the suit. The handing in of a plaint cannot in my opinion be "any other proceeding." Secondly the words in Order XXII, Rule 2, "Set down for hearing" relate to an act
such· as is contemplated \_in Order II, Rule 10. In my opinion this suit was not set down by the plaintiff for hearing within the meaning of these words in Order XXII, Rule 2: nor before serving **a** notice of discontinuance did the plantiff, so it seems to me, " take any other proceeding." For the reasons given I direct that this -suit was · discontinued by the plaintiff on the 20th October and that the defendant can lodge his bill of costs **up** to and including the receipt of that not,ice. The ~sts of the appearance in Court on th\_e 26-10-27 must be borne by the defendant.