[1928] EACA 8
The court held that service of summons by registered post is effective where the defendant refuses to accept the letter. The facts demonstrated that the defendant had every opportunity to receive the summons, and the envelope was clearly marked as originating from the Registrar. Allowing defendants to avoid service...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1928] EACA 8
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Kameshwar Juthalal; Defendant: Amratlal Ramji and another
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Civil Case No. 340 of 1928
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Order
- Outcome
- service_of_summons_held_valid
- Judges
- Barth CJ
- Legal Topics
- Service of Process, Registered Post Service, Refusal of Service
- 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
Kameshwar Juthalal
Plaintiff
Amratlal Ramji and another
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether service of summons by registered post is valid when the defendant refuses to accept the letter.
- 2 Whether refusal to accept a registered cover constitutes good service under Order V, Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1927.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that service of summons by registered post is effective where the defendant refuses to accept the letter. The facts demonstrated that the defendant had every opportunity to receive the summons, and the envelope was clearly marked as originating from the Registrar. Allowing defendants to avoid service by refusing registered packets would render the statutory provisions for service by post ineffective. Therefore, the refusal to accept the registered envelope does not invalidate service, and the requirements of Order V, Rule 27 were satisfied.
Court Disposition
service_of_summons_held_valid
Orders
- Service of summons by registered post is declared good and sufficient under Order V, Rule 27.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
11 paragraphs
## ORIGINAL CIVIL.
Before SIR JACOB BARTH. C. J.
## KAMESHWAR JUTHALAL 9).
## AMRATLAL RAMJI AND ANOTHER. C. C. $340/1928$ .
Civil Procedure Rules 1927-Order 5, Rule 27. Service where defendant resides out of the Colonv.
$Held:$ —That where the summons is sent by registered post and the defendant refuses acceptance of the letter the service is good.
Hopley for plaintiff.
ORDER.—The plaintiff obtained leave to serve the defendant in Uganda under Order V. r. 27.
The summons was sent by registered post in accordance with the provisions of the rule. The registered cover was delivered by the post, one may assume, cf. Sec. 16, Evidence Act, to the defendant at Tororo who refused acceptance. The letter was returned by the postal authorities to the Registrar of this Court where it was received on 1st October, 1927. The envelope is marked "refused" "return to sender."
Mr. Hopley for the plaintiff has contended that the service is good. He cites the provisions of Order V, r. 15 as an analogy, arguing that the tender of the envelope is sufficient. The plaintiff's advocate's office had advertised the fact that the envelope contained some document from the Court by putting "From Registrar, Sup. Crt. NRB " on it.
In my opinion the defendant had every opportunity of receiving the summons and the facts constitute a good service. The provisions for service by registered post would become a dead letter if by merely refusing to accept the registered packet the defendant could avoid service.