When
we last appeared in this court, the plaintiff's counsel applied for a
postponement on the basis that the plaintiff's papers were not in order, and
that he was appearing on behalf of a colleague who was not available to handle
the trial on 28 September 2009.
Counsel
was given the indulgence by this court to file the necessary papers, and put
the plaintiff's house in order. It was made abundantly clear to counsel that
whoever was responsible for handling this matter had to avail himself today for
trial purposes.
I
sympathize with counsel's alleged misfortune..,. A fellow practitioner is the
one who is supposed to represent the plaintiff. A litigant is the one who
chooses his legal practitioner, and there are occasions when such a litigant
must bear the consequences of the conduct of his counsel.
In
my view, this is one such case.
We
cannot have different legal practitioners taking turns to come to this court to
seek postponements, particularly where they represent the plaintiff who dragged
the other party to court. A litigant who brings a case to court must have the
enthusiasm to see his matter finalised.
This
is missing in this case.
The
dilatory conduct of the legal practitioner involved in this matter does not
help at all, and the matter must be finalised. Everything said, I am inclined
to dismiss the plaintiff's claim with costs.
Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed
with costs.
