Wakilii

In Re - of the rules of court (Legal Practitioners) No. 3 of 1926;In Re - of Mr. William Allan an Advocate of the Supreme Court (C.C. 343-1930)

East African Court of Appeal · [1930] EACA 90 · 1930 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by Attorney General for a Rule calling upon an Advocate to show cause why he should not be suspended or struck off the roll
Decision
Rule discharged; advocate not suspended or struck off

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

Held that by allowing judgment to go by default, a defendant is not estopped from denying an allegation of breach of trust in the plaint. The defendant can only be held to admit that the amount sued for was due. The Rule was discharged. Further held that upon discharge of the Rule, the advocate is not entitled to costs from the Crown, as at common law the Crown neither pays nor receives costs.

Outcome

Rule discharged; advocate not suspended or struck off

Facts

The Attorney General applied for a Rule calling upon William Allan, an Advocate of the Supreme Court, to show cause why he should not be suspended or struck off the roll. The ground was that Allan, being a defendant in Civil Suit No. 133 of 1929 in which breach of trust was alleged, failed to enter an appearance and allowed judgment to be entered against him by default on 24 March 1929, thereby impliedly admitting the truth of the breach of trust allegation. Allan's counsel submitted that allowing judgment by default did not amount to an admission of every statement in the plaint, only that the sum sued for was due.

Issues

  1. Whether an advocate who allows judgment to go by default in a civil suit alleging breach of trust thereby impliedly admits the truth of the allegation and should be suspended or struck off the roll.
  2. Whether the advocate is entitled to costs from the Crown upon discharge of the Rule.

Orders

  • Rule discharged.
  • No order as to costs against the Crown.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Default Judgment — Effect of Default — Estoppel
A defendant who allows judgment to go by default is not estopped from denying an allegation of breach of trust in the plaint; the defendant can only be held to admit that the amount sued for was due from him to the plaintiff.
Evidence — Estoppel — Judgment by Default — Scope of Admission
An admission by default in pleading never admits anything beyond the minimum which is necessary to carry the judgment; it does not constitute an admission of the truth of every allegation in the plaint.
Administrative Law — Legal Practitioners — Disciplinary Proceedings — Costs
Upon discharge of a Rule in disciplinary proceedings brought by the Attorney General against an advocate, the advocate is not entitled to costs from the Crown, as at common law the Crown neither pays nor receives costs.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Rules of Court (Legal Practitioners) No. 3 of 1926
  • Crown Suits Act 1855

Cases cited (5)

  • Stephens & Co v Allan (1921) 8 EALR 211
  • Ripley v Arthur & Co (1902) 86 LT 735
  • Howlett v Tarte (1861) 31 LJCP 146
  • Lord Advocate v Hamilton (1852) 1 Macq 46
  • Lord Advocate v Lord Dunglas (1842) 9 Ch & F 173

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

In Re - of the rules of court (Legal Practitioners) No. 3 of 1926;In Re - of Mr. William Allan an Advocate of the Supreme Court (C.C. 343-1930) [1930] EACA 90 (1 January 1930)
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.