[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
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Alemayehu Degefa
Plaintiff
Kim Bowerman
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Ex Parte Application for Leave to Serve Summons Out of Jurisdiction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has satisfied the requirements for leave to serve summons on the defendant outside the jurisdiction.
- 2 Whether the defendant is ordinarily resident outside the jurisdiction, thus falling outside the ambit of Order 5 rule 23(c).
- 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.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA PLAINTIFF V E R S U S CIVIL SUIT NO, £8^ OF 1993 ALEMAYEHU DEGEFA THE REPUBLIC OF UGGNDA
KIM BOWERMAN DEFENDANT BEFORE: . THE, HONOURABLE LADY JUSTICE M. KIREJU
R -U L I N G
This is an application brought by way of Chamber Summons (exparte) under Order 5 rules 23(c), 25 and 33 of Civil Procedure Rules, seeking orders of this court that leave be granted for service of summons to the defendant/respondent outside the jurisdiction *-of* this court to wit the United Kingdom, Thp application was presented by learned counsel Mr, Mutawe
of M/S Katende and Ssempebwa and Comapny Advocates,
The brief background to the application is that the applicant/ plaintiff filed an action against the defendant one Kim Bowerman under Summary Procedure, Or 33 rule 2 of Civil Procedure Rules, The plaintiff claims that the defendant carries on business both in Uganda and in the United Kingdom, sometime in 1992 the plaintiff contracted with the defendant whereby the defendant undertook tP »u>ply the plaintiff with shoes worth US \$ 6981,63 <sup>i</sup> **On** the ix«tr.uetions of the defendant the plaintiff paid the purchase p\$lee to the defendant's agent one Mr, Martin Sharman and the same wa» acknowledged. The defendant promised to ship the goods after payment but he never did despite numerous demands hence the suit to jOMer the contract price.
The main ground of this application is that the defendant/ respondent- is ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom^ The supporting affidavit also stated that the defendant/respondent **is .grdinayily** resident in the United Kingdom and **maintains an of\$i\*e at** Kennington High Street, Kensington London W8 United Kingdom where he could be served.
• • •a/2'i \*
The rule under which this application is made ; is as follows Or. 5 r 23 (c)
••Service out of the jurisdiction of a summons or notice of summons may be all -wed by ue court whenever--- (a) (b) (s) an; relief is sought against any person domiciled or ordinarily resi dent w1<sup>t</sup> bin ' the\* <sup>j</sup>urifidl'rtion» "
My understanding of the above rule is that the court may allow Service out of its jurisdiction if the defendant is domiciled of ordinarily resident within the court's jurisdiction, but at the are time of the summons being served the defendant happens to be out of the jurisdiction<sup>B</sup> The jurisdiction being referred to in the subrule is the court to which the application is made. However, in the instant application he deponed in paragraph 3 of the supporting affidavit that the defendant is ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom which puts him outside the ambit of this rule. This application does not satisfy the requirements of the rule.
The plaintiff is also required under Or 5 r 25 to show that he has a good cause of action and whether such defendant is a Commonwealth citizen or British protected person or not<sup>f</sup> As this is an exp^rte application the plaintiff/applicant is unct'^y court . \*\*\* duty to show/that he has a good cause of action, he should 'disclose to court full particulars on which the claims is based, especially in case as the one under consideration where action is brought under Summary procedure.. Looking at the affidavit in support of the plaint I am not- satisfied that what is disclosed there is enough , for the court to decide whether the plaintiff has a good c&ise acknowledging of action. The fax / receipt of the contract price By the defendant was not attached to the plaint. A copy of- a letter acknowledging payment was attached to the plaint as Annexfeure 'A<sup>f</sup> but it hasvno address and the author is Martin Sharman not the defendant\* The plaintiff claims that the defendant directed that the money be paid to Martin Sharman but there is no document
....
to show that there '"as such a directive#
For the reasons given above I am unable to grant the application as it does not satisfy the conditions for grant of leave to serve summons outside the jurisdiction, it is accordingly dismissed.
c> V-'x •'"CJ/y' M. Kireju
J u d g e 25/11/93
Mr, Francis Buwule holding brief for Mr. Mutawe. Mr, Oburu Court Clerk.
Ruling delivered before the above,
C/ViA.' M. Kireju <sup>r</sup>
Judge 25/11/93