Table of Content
1. court addressed procedural context of amendment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. court's observations considered implications of counsel's presence. (Para 4 , 10 , 11)
3. arguments focused on the grounds for objection and legal sufficiency. (Para 8 , 9 , 13)
4. court concluded that the appeal was dismissed due to lack of prejudice. (Para 12 , 14)

At the outset of the hearing of the application on 24.2.2000, the Plaintiffs Counsel, Encik David Mathews, raised a preliminary objection to the continued presence of Ms Jyotsana Doshi, who had throughout appeared as Counsel for the Defendant since inception of these proceedings against the Defendant.

After hearing arguments on the preliminary objection I found the grounds of objection to Ms Doshi's presence as Counsel for the Defendant to be groundless and unsubstantiated and dismissed the preliminary objection and

[2]

then proceeded to hear arguments on the appeal on its merits.

Thereafter, after considering the submissions of both Counsels, the Plaintiffs appeal against the SAR's decision dated 25.9.99 was dismissed with costs. The background facts and the reasons for my decision are as follows.

Background

By Writ of Summons filed o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document