Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Delay in land dispute was neither inordinate nor inexcusable
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court refuses defendant's interlocutory motion to strike out proceedings seeking to resolve a dispute over the partition of the parties' lands (a family farm), on the grounds that: (1) the plaintiff had made efforts to obtain the agreement of the defendant to engage in mediation; and (2) the plaintiff's attempts to remit the proceedings to the Circuit Court to save on litigation costs were both bona fides efforts to resolve the dispute in a reasonable manner; as such, the court should not penalise such a party and therefore any delay in the case, with pre or post-proceedings, is neither inordinate nor inexcusable.
Application to strike out proceedings on grounds of delay - deed of transfer regarding division of family farm - claim of non est factum and misrepresentation - contributing factors to delay - plaintiff attempt at mediation - plaintiff attempt to remit matter to Circuit Court to save on costs - pre-proceedings delay - significance of deed of transfer only discovered by plaintiff close to date of issue - not inordinate nor inexcusable - post proceedings delay - three-year period between filing of statement of claim and reply to particulars not inordinate nor inexcusable - 6-year period between filing of defence and current motion before court - bona fides attempts made by plaintiff to engage in process of mediation and therefore he should not be penalised from delay resulting thereto - attempt to reduce litigation costs - consent of defendant sought for remittal to Circuit Court - delay by defendant in replying - plaintiff's application to set a trial date was the impetus for defendant's motion to strike out - foot-dragging by defendant - vivid recollection of disputed events on both sides - no significant prejudice to defendant's case - delay neither inordinate nor inexcusable in light of plaintiff's attempts to mediate and reduce costs - application refused.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
