This second appeal arose from the decision of the Court
of Appeal which reversed a decision of the High Court.

Court considered whether the learned trial judge wrongly
exercised his discretion when he refused to grant an
adjournment.

Court ruled that the facts show that the appellant was not
at fault and wanted the trial to continue.
It was the opinion of court that as the trial had aborted,
the conclusions reached by the learned Justice of Appeal
were sufficient to justify sending the case back to the
trial judge for continuation of the hearing. That this was

a typical example of a case where the principle that
justice must not only be done but must be seen to be
done had clearly been violated by the trial court.

Court accordingly allowed the appeal and ordered for a
file to be remitted back to the trial judge with orders for
him or for his successor to continue with the hearing of
the case starting where he stopped, namely, hearing the
defence case.