Wakilii

Devji v Jinabhai (C.A. 6-1934.)

East African Court of Appeal · [1937] EACA 87 · 1937 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from order and decree of the Chief Justice of Uganda refusing extension of time to file defence and entering judgment for plaintiff
Decision
Appeal dismissed with costs

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 Court of Appeal held that the trial judge properly exercised his discretion in refusing to extend time for filing a defence where no defence had been filed by the prescribed date. Having exercised that discretion, the trial judge acted correctly in proceeding to hear the plaintiff's evidence and giving judgment without allowing the defendant to cross-examine or adduce evidence. The case was distinguished from Ross v Scriven because here the decree was founded on oral evidence taken at trial, not merely on the pleadings.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs

Facts

The appellant was sued for a liquidated amount. On the return day of summons, he was ordered to file a written statement of defence within three weeks. The appellant was personally present and his advocate was notified of the order. No defence was filed within the prescribed time or at all. When the case was called for hearing, the appellant appeared with new counsel who applied for an extension of time to file a defence, citing the original advocate's failure to file and the illness of the appellant's wife. The trial judge refused the application and proceeded to hear evidence from the plaintiff in support of his claim. The judge refused to allow the defendant or his counsel, though present, to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness or offer evidence in rebuttal. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed with costs and interest.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial judge properly exercised his discretion under Order XLV Rule 5 in refusing to enlarge time for filing a defence when the application was made on the hearing date and no defence had been filed.
  2. Whether the trial judge, having refused the extension, acted properly in proceeding to hear the plaintiff's evidence without allowing the defendant or his counsel to cross-examine or offer evidence in rebuttal.
  3. Whether the decision in Ross v Scriven (1916) 43 Cal 1001 was authority for setting aside the decree in the present case.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Discretion to Refuse Extension for Filing Defence
Where a defendant fails to file a written statement of defence within the time prescribed by court order and applies for an extension only on the hearing date, the trial judge has discretion under Order XLV Rule 5 to refuse the application, and the exercise of that discretion will not be disturbed on appeal unless shown to be improper.
Civil Procedure — Default in Filing Defence — Procedure Where Extension Refused
Where a trial judge properly exercises discretion to refuse an extension of time for filing a defence, the judge acts correctly in proceeding forthwith to hear the plaintiff's evidence in support of the claim without allowing the defendant or his counsel to cross-examine or offer evidence in rebuttal, as to do otherwise would stultify the decision refusing the extension and give an undue advantage to the defaulting party.
Civil Procedure — Judgment in Default — Distinction from Ross v Scriven
A decree founded on oral evidence of the plaintiff taken at trial is valid even where the defendant failed to file a defence, and is distinguishable from a decree entered without hearing any evidence at all, which was the situation condemned in Ross v Scriven (1916) 43 Cal 1001.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Effect of Failure to File Defence
A defendant who fails to file a written statement of defence as ordered by the court puts himself out of court and has no locus standi to participate in the trial, as to allow participation would prejudice the plaintiff by forcing him to conduct his case without knowing the defence and would give a gratuitous advantage to the defaulting defendant.

Legislation cited (12)

  • Uganda Civil Procedure Rules Order XLV Rule 5
  • Uganda Civil Procedure Rules Order VIII Rule 1
  • Uganda Civil Procedure Rules Order VIII Rule 3
  • Uganda Civil Procedure Rules Order VI Rule 5
  • Uganda Civil Procedure Rules Order XI Rule 6
  • Uganda Civil Procedure Rules Order XIII Rule 1(5)
  • Uganda Civil Procedure Rules Order XIII Rule 3(a)
  • Uganda Civil Procedure Rules Order XXXIII
  • Uganda Civil Procedure Ordinance s.25
  • Evidence Ordinance s.139
  • Indian Civil Procedure Code 1908 Order VIII Rule 10
  • Indian Civil Procedure Code 1882 s.113

Cases cited (3)

  • Ross v Scriven (1916) 43 Cal 1001
  • Mahomed Moti v Chenchalbhai 6 EALR 1
  • Caroli v Hirst

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Devji v Jinabhai (C.A. 6-1934.) [1937] EACA 87 (1 January 1937)
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.