1. On 21/02/2018, Plaintiff took a writ of summons from the Registry this Court.
The writ was accompanied by a statement of claim, which was subsequently amended and a reply as well, as shown by records of this Court.
The Defendant has filed a Notice of Appearance and defence in which a counter-claim has been indorsed.
Subsequently, this Court heard a motion on notice, filed on 07/11/2018 for an order dismissing Plaintiff’s suit for failure to provide/indorse, residential and occupational addresses, as required by the rules of Court.
The application was opposed.
And on 27/11/2018, this Court, delivered its Ruling.
This Court held that the failure to indorse residential and occupational addresses as provided for by ORDER 2 RULE 3(2)of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules, 2004, is an irregularity that is fundamental, and affects the jurisdiction of this Court.
Thereafter, a motion to set aside the said Ruling was also dismissed.
In effect, Plaintiff’s action has been dismissed, and what is left is the trial of the counter-claim of the Defendant.
However, Plaintiff’s Counsel purport to file additional issues, meant for adoption and determination alongside issues in the Direction filed by the Counter-claimant.
The issue that has arisen therefore is, whether a Plaintiff, who has his action dismissed, can validly file Additional Issues, and have issues therein set down for trial.
This Court holds the view that such a Plaintiff, cannot file such a process, for issues to be adopted for a trial.
This is because, his writ and Reply, have been dismissed, and no new cause of action has accrued to the benefit of the Plaintiff after the dismissal of his case.
The Ruling subsists until it is set aside by an appellate Court, it constitutes a barrier to the step Plaintiff has taken.
However, such a Plaintiff could still participate in the trial by way of cross-examination of the counter-claimant and his witnesses.
The Court is enjoined to have notice served on such a Plaintiff, for the transaction of business, which could legitimately be conducted, as part of the preparation for that one sided trial.
Consequently, the process, namely Additional Issues filed on 13/12/2018 by Plaintiff herein, is not sanctioned by the rules of Court, none, has been cited in support.
It is incompetent and I strike it out accordingly.
BY COURT:
(2) This Court, placing reliance on its inherent jurisdiction, and proceedings in accordance with ORDER 12 Rule 2(1) and (2) of C.
