APALOO C.J.
On 19 June 1975, the High Court entered judgment in favour of the respondent for title to a piece of land and granted her other ancillary reliefs. Before doing so, the respondent had led evidence of her title to the land and a surveyor who was appointed by the court to view and make a plan of the land had given evidence and produced that plan in evidence. Although the appellant was himself in court, his counsel was absent. He was out of the country, apparently on a government delegation. He wrote to the court requesting adjournment to a named date. The judge declined to accede to that request and said no sufficient grounds existed for it. Order 36, r. 19 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 1954 (L.N. 140A), gives him a discretion to adjourn a trial if, in his opinion, the interests of justice required this. In this suit, the judge thought the interests of justice were against this course. As the appellant was himself in court, he was given an opportunity to present t…