Description
Case management tool – extension of speed tracks – interest of justice – speed tracks are not cast in iron – evidence recorded after expiry of a speed track – Rule 4 of Order VIIIA of the Civil Procedure Code.
- Case management tool – the assignment of appropriate speed tracks to different categories of casesunder Order VIIIA of the CPC brought in its wake an important case management tool to assist the trial judges and magistrates.
- Interests of justice may justify extensions of speed tracks.
- The words “in the interests of justice” under Rule 4 implies that the speed tracks identified under Rule 3 of Order VIIIA of the CPC are not cast in iron.
- The duty to be vigilant to ensure that the assigned speed track does not expire before the trial comes to a close is not on the plaintiff alone.
- Evidence recorded after expiry of speed track and no extension had been sought – whether the evidence is valid.
- Expiry of a speed track – Trial courts should not read automatism in Rule 4 of Order VIIIA of the CPC to the legal consequence that once the speed track expires the life of everything that followed, including the evidence, becomes inconsequential – parties must be heard before trial courts impose any drastic legal consequences which are likely to affect the substantive rights of parties.
- The presiding judicial officer must take an active rather than passive charge and guide the case asit moves through its designated speed track.
- Where expiry of a speed track is caused by so many adjournments – what should be done.
- Because the appellant applied for a belated extension of the speed track, it was not proper for the first appellate court to nullify the proceedings as he did.
