Juthalal v Ramji and Another (C.C. 340-1928.)
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
Where a summons is sent by registered post under Order 5 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1927 and the defendant refuses acceptance of the registered letter, the service is good. The defendant had every opportunity to receive the summons and refusal to accept does not defeat service. The provisions for service by registered post would become ineffective if mere refusal could avoid service.
Outcome
Service by registered post upheld despite defendant's refusal to accept
Facts
The plaintiff obtained leave to serve the defendant in Uganda under Order 5 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1927. The summons was sent by registered post to the defendant at Tororo. The registered cover was delivered by the post to the defendant who refused acceptance. The letter was returned by the postal authorities to the Registrar of the Court on 1 October 1927. The envelope was marked 'refused return to sender'. The envelope bore the marking 'From Registrar, Sup. Crt NRB' indicating it contained a court document.
Issues
- Whether service by registered post is valid where the defendant refuses to accept the registered letter.
Orders
- Service declared good.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (3)
- Civil Procedure Rules 1927 Order 5 Rule 27
- Civil Procedure Rules 1927 Order 5 Rule 15
- Evidence Act s.16
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.