At
the commencement of the trial, counsel for the first and second defendants…,
raised a point in limine relating to the capacity of
the plaintiff to represent the minor child; the plaintiff having been cited in
the papers as guardian when the parents are still alive.
It
was not in dispute that the plaintiff had acted ...
At
the commencement of the trial, counsel for the first and second defendants…,
raised a point in limine relating to the capacity of
the plaintiff to represent the minor child; the plaintiff having been cited in
the papers as guardian when the parents are still alive.
It
was not in dispute that the plaintiff had acted on behalf of the minor child.
What counsel sought to argue was that guardianship can only be assumed by a
natural parent or by formal appointment and that there was no document filed to
show that the plaintiff had been so appointed.
Counsel
for the plaintiff argued that that the plaintiff had at all times acted on the
strength of a power of attorney. The sale had gone through and transfer had
been effected. The issue of the plaintiff's locus standi, he said,
had also never been an issue up until the day of the trial.
I
dismissed the point in limine for the reason that
the plaintiff was said to have acted on the basis of a power of attorney. Also
not only had the sale gone through but the issue had also not been raised in
the related matters that had come before the court. More significantly, the
gravamen of the dispute has nothing to do with guardianship. It has to do with
ownership of the property. The point in limine was, in my
view, merely designed to further the delay the matter since the plaintiff would
still be the core witness even if papers were to be filed by the parents as
guardians which I did not deem necessary since it was indicated that the
plaintiff acted on the strength of a power of attorney.
In
safeguarding the interests of the minor child I ruled that the matter proceed.
