Mandevia v Standard Bank of South Africa, Limited (Civil Case No. 19 of 1943) [1944] EACA 20 (1 January 1944)

## ORIGINAL CIVIL <u>. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . </u>

#### Before BARTLEY, J.

# $\mathcal{L}(\mathbf{A}) = \mathbf{I}$

## V. R. MANDEVIA, Plaintiff

û

## THE STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA, LIMITED, Defendants Civil Case No. 19 of 1943

Civil Procedure—Inspection of document—Relevance of document.

The plaintiff who was employed by the defendant bank from September, 1924, to the 3rd December, 1942, sued the bank for 16 months' half pay in lieu of leave which had not been granted to him and to which he alleged he was entitled during his service. He also sued for Sh. 4,000 in lieu of return passages to India to which he alleged he was entitled in connexion with the leave withheld. The plaint also contained claims for Sh. 2,000 in lieu of 20 weeks' accrued local leave and Sh. 7,643/27 in respect of gratuity. The plaintiff having demanded inspection of a document dated 23rd January, 1922, and marked "Private Official" written by the Superintendent of defendant's East African branches to the bank managers in East Africa which document purports to set out regulations which came into force on the 1st January, 1922, regarding overseas leave conditions and pensions of the staff. The defendant bank refused inspection and the plaintiff applied to the Court.

Held (15-11-43).—That the plaintiff is entitled to inspection of the document if it would assist him either directly or indirectly in the suit quite apart from whether he was a party to the document or whether its contents had been communicated to him.

Application allowed.

Khanna for the Applicant.

## Shapley and Dr. Mathews for the Respondents.

ORDER.—The defendants claim privilege for a document on the ground that it is irrelevant to the plaintiff's claim. The document in question, which I have examined, is dated the 22nd January, 1922, and is marked "Private Official". It was written by the then Superintendent of the defendants' East African branches to the bank managers in East Africa and purports to quote regulations which came into force on the 1st January, 1922, regarding salaries, leave conditions and pensions of the Indian staff of the defendant bank. The defendants allege that the document was only sent to the managers for guidance and that as the plaintiff was not a party to the document which was not authoritatively communicated to him and as the document did not form part of the plaintiff's contract of employment it was irrelevant. The defendants further allege that the terms set out in the document were liable to be altered, added to or revoked at the option of the bank and were altered, added to or revoked by subsequent documents. Mr. Shapley for the defendants confirmed his arguments to submitting that the document could not be held to be relevant unless it was proved to be the basis of the contract of service between the parties and that it was clear from a comparison of paragraph 1 of the plaint with paragraph 2 of the letter dated 19th May, 1943, from the plaintiff's advocates that the terms of the document were unknown to the plaintiff not only at the time of his employment but also at the time of the institution of the suit and that therefore it could not have formed the basis of his contract of service.

In my opinion the plaintiff is entitled to inspection of the document if it would assist him either directly or indirectly in the suit quite apart from whether he was a party to the document or whether its contents had been communicated to him. In my view in the circumstances of the case the document is not irrelevant to the plaintiff's suit and the plaintiff is entitled to inspection of a document which purports to show certain regulations in force in the bank at the time of his engagement. There was no written contract of service so presumably the conditions of service were governed by regulations. Even if those regulations have been altered, added to or revoked I am of the opinion that the regulations in force at the time of his engagement are not irrelevant to the plaintiff's suit on the pleadings and on the evidence before me.

I grant the application with costs against the defendants.