[1928] EACA 18
The court held that since the claim was liquidated and the defendant failed to enter an appearance, there was no duty on the court to go beyond the face of the plaint to investigate the full facts of the transaction. The Registrar acted within his powers in requiring production of documents and referring the matter...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1928] EACA 18
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Tyson Bros, Ltd.; Defendant: J. G. Newsome
- Court
- East African Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- C.C. 130/1928.
- Procedural Posture
- Original Civil / Judgment
- Outcome
- judgment_for_plaintiff
- Judges
- Barth CJ
- Legal Topics
- Production of Documents, Liquidated Claims, Default Judgment
- 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
Tyson Bros, Ltd.
Plaintiff
J. G. Newsome
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Original Civil / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court can require production of documents under Order 10 Rule 14 when the claim is liquidated.
- 2 Whether refusal to produce documents by the plaintiff's advocate bars entry of judgment.
- 3 Whether the court must investigate the full facts of the transaction when the defendant fails to appear.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that since the claim was liquidated and the defendant failed to enter an appearance, there was no duty on the court to go beyond the face of the plaint to investigate the full facts of the transaction. The Registrar acted within his powers in requiring production of documents and referring the matter to a judge upon refusal. However, the absence of a defence and the liquidated nature of the claim justified entry of judgment for the plaintiff. The court emphasized that any undisclosed defence should have been raised by the defendant through appearance.
Court Disposition
judgment_for_plaintiff
Orders
- Judgment for the plaintiff for Sh. 4,000 with interest at 6 per cent from 13th January, 1928, to judgment.
- Interest at 6 per cent on the decree to payment.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
$61$
## ORIGINAL CIVIL.
Before SIR JACOB BARTH, C. J.
TYSON BROS, LTD. v.
## J. G. NEWSOME. C. C. $130/1928$ .
Civil Procedure Rules, 1927, Order 10, Rule 14-production of documents.
Held: That where the claim is liquidated on the face of the plaint there is no duty on the Court to go beyond that to discover whether the plaint sets out the full facts.
The following Order was made by the Registrar:-
Mr. Harrison appeared before me and when asked for agreement, or other document showing the advance and undertaking of the defendant, Mr. Harrison states that it was a verbal arrange-On being further questioned he states that there was a ment. letter written to the defendant confirming the advance, and I asked him, as the original was in the possession of the defendant, to file a copy in the case file as an exhibit, which he refused. He also stated that he held the receipt of defendant for Sh. 4,000 but also refused to produce the said receipt. Under Order 10 Rule 14. I hold that the Court is entitled to call for both the receipt and said letter to be produced, and Mr. Harrison has refused to produce same. Therefore I refuse to enter up judgment.
Harrison, for plaintiff.
JUDGMENT.-In this case the defendant has not entered an appearance.
The claim is on the face of it a liquidated demand for money lent plus an alleged agreed rate of interest.
On the matter coming before the Registrar for judgment under Order XLVI r. 2 he asked if the agreement were verbal and was informed that it was. It was admitted that the plaintiffs held a receipt for the advance but the plaintiff's advocate refused to produce it or the memorandum of agreement which it was admitted was sent to the defendant confirming the advance. On this refusal the Registrar refused to enter judgment for the plaintiffs.
In my opinion the Registrar was within his powers in so acting and in puting the case before a Judge.
The defendant by omitting to enter an appearance has virtually abandoned any defence there might be. The claim is liquidated on the face of the plaint and I do not feel inclined to go beyond that in an effort to discover whether or not the plaint sets out the full facts of the transaction. If there be a defence undisclosed in the proofs the defendant should have entered an appearance.
There will be judgment for the plaintiffs for Sh. 4,000 with interest at 6 per cent from the 13th January, 1928, to judgment and 6 per cent on the decree to payment.