[1943] EACA 80
The court held that service of the application for alimony pendente lite on the respondent's advocates, who had entered appearance, constituted good service, notwithstanding their subsequent refusal to accept service after ceasing to act. The respondent failed to provide a new address for service or to comply with...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1943] EACA 80
- Parties
- Applicant: Rosemary Joan Williams-Meyrick; Respondent: Anthony Julian (or John) Stewart Williams-Meyrick
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Divorce Cause No. 12 of 1943
- Procedural Posture
- Divorce Cause / Application for Alimony Pendente Lite
- Outcome
- Application for alimony pendente lite granted.
- Judges
- Lucie-Smith, J. (Kenya)
- Legal Topics
- Alimony Pendente Lite, Service of Process, Matrimonial Causes Rules
- 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
Rosemary Joan Williams-Meyrick
Applicant
Anthony Julian (or John) Stewart Williams-Meyrick
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Divorce Cause / Application for Alimony Pendente Lite
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether service of the application for alimony pendente lite on the advocate who entered appearance for the respondent constitutes good service.
- 2 Whether the respondent is obliged to provide an address for service after his advocate ceases to act.
- 3 Whether the petitioner is entitled to alimony pendente lite based on the respondent's stated income.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that service of the application for alimony pendente lite on the respondent's advocates, who had entered appearance, constituted good service, notwithstanding their subsequent refusal to accept service after ceasing to act. The respondent failed to provide a new address for service or to comply with the requirement to file an affidavit of means. The court accepted the applicant's evidence of the respondent's income and, exercising its discretion under the Matrimonial Causes Rules, ordered the respondent to pay alimony pendente lite to the applicant.
Court Disposition
Application for alimony pendente lite granted.
Orders
- The respondent shall pay the petitioner Sh. 160 per month as alimony pendente lite from the date of service of the petition.
- Liberty to both parties to apply.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
# **DIVORCE JURISDICTION**
### BEFORE LUCIE-SMITH, J.
## ROSEMARY JOAN WILLIAMS-MEYRICK. Petitioner
#### $\nu$ .
# ANTHONY JULIAN (or JOHN) STEWART WILLIAMS-MEYRICK. **Respondent**
# Divorce Cause No. 12 of 1943
Matrimonial Causes—Advocate entering appearance for Respondent—Advocate ceasing to act-No fresh address for service furnished-Application for Alimony pendente lite—R. S. C. O. III R. 6—R. 8 (1) Matrimonial Causes Rules—R. 44 (1) Matrimonial Causes Rules.
The facts appear sufficiently from the Ruling.
Held (7-6-43).—Service on advocate entering appearance good service.
Slade for petitioner.
No appearance of respondent.
RULING.—This is an application for alimony *pendente lite* under Section 24 (1) of the Matrimonial Causes Ordinance.
The petition herein was filed on 15-3-43 and appearance for the respondent was filed by Messrs. Kaplan & Stratton on 29-3-43.
The present summons is dated 5-5-43. Mr. Slade has very properly brought to the notice of the Court that the summons herein has not been served as Messrs. Kaplan & Stratton refused to accept service, having informed the Court and the petitioner's advocates on 27-4-43 that they were no longer acting. The respondent has taken no steps to get another address for service on the record. In this connexion I would refer to R. S. C. O. III R. 6, which may be a useful guide.
The relevant part of $R$ . 8 (1) of the Matrimonial Causes Rules reads: " $\ldots$ a certified copy of every notice of an application for ancillary relief shall be personally served upon the respondent thereto, unless the respondent has entered a general appearance to the petition in the cause in which the application is made in which case the notice may be served by leaving it at the address for service furnished by the respondent".
It is to be noted that paragraph 4 of the prayer of the petition asks that the Court will order that the respondent do pay to the petitioner such sums of money by way of alimony pending suit as may seem just.
I would now refer to Rule 44 (1) of the Matrimonial Causes Rules which reads: "Where a husband is served with a petition in which alimony pending suit is claimed he shall within fourteen days after entering an appearance file an affidavit setting out full particulars of his property and income". In view of the above I am of opinion that the service of the application on Messrs. Kaplan & Stratton was good service on the respondent and the fact of their refusing to accept service is immaterial.
For the purposes of this application Mr. Slade has accepted the statement as to the respondent's income contained in Exh. HS1 dated 1-4-43. Acting under Rule 49 Matrimonial Causes Rules I order that the respondent do pay to the petitioner the sum of Sh. 160 per month as alimony pendente lite as from the date of service of the petition on the respondent.
Liberty to both parties to apply.
Costs of this application to the petitioner