Section 90:
consolidated text (as at 2017). juris shows the text as it was consolidated; it does not confirm that this is the law in force today.
90. Duty of client to ensure Counsel’s presence—On 5 May 1980, the appellant appeared and produced a letter from Counsel, and the case was fixed
to 14 July for trial. On 8 July, Counsel wrote to move for a change of date,
and the trial was fixed to 18 August. On 18 August, neither the appellant
nor his Counsel appeared, but as the Magistrate was absent, the clerk adjourned the case to 21 August, and caused the police to warn the appellant.
On 21 August the appellant appeared, and the Magistrate fixed the case to
10 October for trial. On that date, the appellant appeared without his Counsel and moved for a postponement, alleging a misunderstanding. The Magistrate refused.
HELD (i) as the Magistrate was granting a favour to Counsel in changing
the date from 14 July to 18 August, it was for Counsel to ascertain the new
trial date, and the Magistrate had no duty to write to inform him of the new
date; (ii) on 21 August the appellant was given 50 days to inform his Counsel that the case would be heard on 10 October. He was trying to set up his
own default to obtain another postponement, and the Magistrate had been
right to refuse the postponement. Jheelan v R (1981).
[Issue 1] CON – 192
Revised Laws of Mauritius