Wakilii

Alemayehu Degefa v Kim Bowerman (CIVIL SUIT NO. 284 1993)

High Court · [1993] UGHC 121 · 1993 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ex-parte application for leave to serve summons outside the jurisdiction
Decision
Application for leave to serve summons outside jurisdiction dismissed

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The High Court dismissed an ex-parte application for leave to serve summons outside the jurisdiction. The court held that Order 5 rule 23(c) permits service outside jurisdiction only when the defendant is domiciled or ordinarily resident within the court's jurisdiction but happens to be temporarily outside. As the defendant was ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, he fell outside the rule's ambit. The court also found the plaintiff had not disclosed sufficient particulars to establish a good cause of action, as the acknowledgment of payment was from a third party without proof the defendant directed such payment.

Outcome

Application for leave to serve summons outside jurisdiction dismissed

Facts

The plaintiff filed suit under summary procedure against the defendant, claiming breach of contract. In 1992, the plaintiff contracted with the defendant for supply of shoes worth US$69,851.63. On the defendant's instructions, the plaintiff paid the purchase price to the defendant's agent, Martin Sharman, and payment was acknowledged. The defendant promised to ship the goods but never did despite demands. The plaintiff sought to recover the contract price. The defendant carried on business in both Uganda and the United Kingdom. The plaintiff applied ex-parte for leave to serve summons on the defendant in the United Kingdom, where he was ordinarily resident at 9 Kennington High Street, Kensington, London WS.

Issues

  1. Whether the court should grant leave to serve summons on the defendant outside the jurisdiction of the court
  2. Whether the plaintiff satisfied the requirements under Order 5 rule 23(c) of the Civil Procedure Rules
  3. Whether the plaintiff disclosed sufficient particulars to show a good cause of action

Orders

  • Application dismissed

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Service Outside Jurisdiction — Order 5 rule 23(c)
Order 5 rule 23(c) of the Civil Procedure Rules permits service of summons outside the jurisdiction only where the defendant is domiciled or ordinarily resident within the court's jurisdiction but happens to be temporarily outside at the time of service. The rule does not permit service on a defendant who is ordinarily resident outside the jurisdiction.
Civil Procedure — Service Outside Jurisdiction — Requirements — Good Cause of Action
Under Order 5 rule 25 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a plaintiff applying for leave to serve summons outside the jurisdiction must show the court that he has a good cause of action and disclose full particulars on which the claim is based. This duty is particularly stringent in ex-parte applications and in actions brought under summary procedure.
Contract Law — Proof of Contract — Agency — Establishing Authority
Where a plaintiff claims that payment was made to a third party on the defendant's instructions, the plaintiff must produce documentary evidence showing the defendant directed such payment. Acknowledgment of receipt by the alleged agent without proof of the agent's authority is insufficient to establish the defendant's liability.

Legislation cited (5)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Alemayehu Degefa v Kim Bowerman (CIVIL SUIT NO. 284_1993) [1993] UGHC 121 (25 November 1993)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.