HEGGIE (MARRIED WOMAN) v. COMMONWEALTH HAULAGE CO., LTD.

JUDGMENT OF VAN LARE J.S.C.

This is an appeal from an order of Charles J. made in the High Court, Sekondi, on the 2nd May, 1961, striking out the appellant's action against the respondent firm, according to the notes, "for want of prosecution." This followed an application on behalf of the appellant for an adjournment for stated reasons including particularly that the court had not yet made an order for delivery and inspection of documents as asked for in the summons for directions filed. Counsel for the respondents before us asked the court to strike out the case for want of prosecution alleging that most of the adjournments had been at the instance of the appellant in this court. This allegation does not appear to be borne out by the record which shows that in respect of the application for directions in the court below there was only one adjournment which was rather at the instance of counsel for the respondent. However, be that as it may, the learned judge, without specifically refusing the application for adjournments, although impliedly doing so, and without calling upon the plaintiff to proceed with the case, struck it out.

It is true that the case had been fixed for trial on the day it was struck out. The trial date was fixed on the 27th February, 1961, when the court dealt with the summons for directions. The plaintiff's request for her evidence to be taken on commission in the United Kingdom where she had been resident even at the date of filing the writ of summons was in my view properly refused as no good reasons were shown, but without dealing with the other matters appearing on the summons such as directions for discovery and inspection of documents, the judge fixed a trial date. However when the case came on for hearing on the appointed day that part of the summons for directions for the defendant firm to deliver a list of all correspondence between the parties and for an order for inspection of documents had not been dealt with and should have been deemed still pending before the court.

In view of the absence of the plaintiff in the United Kingdom the interest of justice required the application on her behalf for discovery and inspection of documents for the purpose of the trial to be entertained as the issues might well be settled and narrowed. As the issues had not then been settled the learned judge should have taken such matter into consideration to grant an adjournment for the purpose. I venture to say that a case is not ripe for he