[1993] UGHC 57

[1993] UGHC 57

The court found that the applicant failed to satisfy the requirements for leave to serve summons outside the jurisdiction. Specifically, the defendant was stated to be ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, which places him outside the ambit of Order 5 rule 23(c), as the rule applies to defendants ordinarily...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1993] UGHC 57
Parties
Plaintiff: Alemayehu Degefa; Defendant: Kim Bowerman
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Civil Suit 484 of 1993
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Ex Parte Application for Leave to Serve Summons Out of Jurisdiction
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
Kireju, J
Legal Topics
Service Out of Jurisdiction, Summary Procedure, Leave to Serve, Cause of Action, Affidavit Requirements
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Service Out of Jurisdiction Summary Procedure Leave to Serve Cause of Action Affidavit Requirements

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alemayehu Degefa

Plaintiff

Kim Bowerman

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Ex Parte Application for Leave to Serve Summons Out of Jurisdiction

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has satisfied the requirements for leave to serve summons on the defendant outside the jurisdiction.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant is ordinarily resident outside the jurisdiction, thus falling outside the ambit of Order 5 rule 23(c).
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has disclosed a good cause of action and provided sufficient particulars to justify the order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to satisfy the requirements for leave to serve summons outside the jurisdiction. Specifically, the defendant was stated to be ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, which places him outside the ambit of Order 5 rule 23(c), as the rule applies to defendants ordinarily resident within the jurisdiction but temporarily absent. Furthermore, the applicant did not provide sufficient particulars to establish a good cause of action; the affidavit lacked documentary evidence showing the defendant's directive to pay his agent, and the acknowledgment of payment was not from the defendant. The court was not satisfied that the applicant had disclosed enough...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for leave to serve summons outside the jurisdiction is dismissed.