David Sasson & Comp. Ltd. v. Navichandra Patel and Others, Civ. Case 184-DSM-71, 13/7/72, Mwakasendo, Ag. J.

David Sasson & Comp. Ltd. v. Navichandra Patel and Others, Civ. Case 184-DSM-71, 13/7/72, Mwakasendo, Ag. J.

This was an application upon affidavits brought under rule 3 of Order 35 for leave to appear and defend a suit upon a bill of exchange. The applicant advanced various arguments to show that the bill of exchange did not concern him. In the course of deciding that the case should go to trial, the court made the following observations on its role at this stage.

            Held: (1) “My role in these proceedings is fairly limited. It is simply to decide upon the affidavits filed by the applicant, whether there is disclosed any issue fit to go for trial and no more. [Citing Jacobs vs. Booths Distillery Company (1901) 85 LT. 262] …… Now, in the instant case and upon the affidavits filed by the applicant, can this Court say to the applicant, “You have no defenced whatsoever against the plaintiff’s claim.” I do not think so. It would clearly appear from the arguments canvassed by both counsels that in this suit there is more than one triable issue that should be allowed to go before the appropriate tribunal. What chances the applicant has of succeeding in the end, is not for me to say ….. (2) Application granted.