Wakilii

Jamil Ramji Coffee Curing Co. Limited v Foods & Beverages Limited (Civil Suit 393 of 1992)

High Court · [1994] UGHC 61 · 1994 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory ruling on contested service of a hearing notice in a first instance civil suit
Decision
Defence application for hearing to start de novo rejected; plaintiff allowed to continue proceedings with participation by defence counsel

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 held that a law clerk in an advocate's chambers is prima facie capable of effecting service under Order 5 Rule 8(1)(a)(ii) of the Civil Procedure Rules in the absence of evidence showing disapproval by the court. Service was effective when the clerk left a copy of the hearing notice with defence counsel's secretary in counsel's presence after counsel declined to accept it. A party who deliberately refuses to accept service and then arrives late cannot require proceedings to start de novo. The defence contentions were rejected with costs to the plaintiff.

Outcome

Defence application for hearing to start de novo rejected; plaintiff allowed to continue proceedings with participation by defence counsel

Facts

This civil suit was fixed for hearing on 28 February 1994. A hearing notice was issued and served by Kalungi, a law clerk in the plaintiff's advocate's chambers. Kalungi testified he visited defence counsel's chambers on 10 February 1994 in the morning and was told by the legal assistant that counsel would not be available until 3.00 p.m. Kalungi returned at 3.00 p.m., found defence counsel in chambers with a visitor, and tendered the hearing notice. Defence counsel refused to accept it, claiming there was an appeal filed in the Supreme Court regarding an earlier order in the suit. Kalungi left a copy of the notice with defence counsel's secretary in counsel's presence and swore an affidavit of service. Defence counsel arrived at court late on 28 February 1994 at 10.43 a.m., after the plaintiff's first witness had already begun testifying following the court's decision to proceed ex parte. Defence counsel denied service and challenged Kalungi's authority as a process server.

Issues

  1. Whether a law clerk in the chambers of an advocate is authorised to effect service of a hearing notice under Order 5 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether service of a hearing notice was effectively accomplished when defence counsel declined to accept the notice but it was left with his secretary in his presence.
  3. Whether a party who was effectively served but declined to accept service may, upon arriving late to the hearing, require proceedings to start de novo.

Orders

  • Defence contentions rejected.
  • Costs awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Service of Process — Authorised Persons — Law Clerks in Advocate's Chambers
A law clerk in an advocate's chambers is prima facie capable of effecting service of process under Order 5 Rule 8(1)(a)(ii) of the Civil Procedure Rules, which permits service by an advocate's clerk who may be approved by the court generally to effect service, in the absence of evidence showing that the particular clerk has not been approved by the court.
Service of Process — Effective Service — Refusal to Accept
Service is effective when a process server leaves a copy of the hearing notice with the addressee's secretary in the addressee's presence after the addressee declines to accept personal service, provided the addressee is aware of the nature of the document being served.
Procedure — Deliberate Refusal of Service — No Right to De Novo Hearing
A party who deliberately refuses to accept service of a hearing notice and arrives late to court after proceedings have commenced cannot require that the hearing start de novo, as to hold otherwise would permit advocates and litigants who deliberately refuse process service to disrupt proceedings by demanding a fresh hearing at any stage.

Legislation cited (3)

  • Civil Procedure Rules O.5 R.8
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.14 R.8
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.45 R.2

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Jamil Ramji Coffee Curing Co. Limited v Foods & Beverages Limited (Civil Suit 393 of 1992) [1994] UGHC 61 (1 March 1994)
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.