Krishna v Ssazi and Another (Miscellaneous Application 132 of 2023)
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 Industrial Court granted leave for substituted service by publication in a newspaper of wide circulation where the respondents were evasive and elusive, their counsel declined to accept service, and ordinary service could not be effected. The Court held that enlarging time was unnecessary as the respondents had previously filed a defence and appeared in court, and the matter concerned only service of hearing notices.
Outcome
Application granted; substituted service by newspaper publication authorized
Facts
The applicant sought leave to effect service on the respondents by substituted means. The Court process server deposed that the respondents and their counsel suddenly ceased attending Court. Attempts to serve the 2nd Respondent at its principal place of business on the 2nd Floor, Mutaasa Kafeero Building were unsuccessful as the 2nd Respondent declined service on instructions of the 1st Respondent. Counsel on record, M/s. Mungoma, Mabonga, Wakhakha, refused to accept service on the ground that they needed instructions. The respondents had previously filed a written statement of defence on 21 April 2016 and appeared in Court on 21 August 2019, but counsel subsequently ceased appearing.
Issues
- Whether the Court should grant leave to effect service on the Respondents by substituted service.
- Whether time should be enlarged to effect service.
Orders
- Application for substituted service granted.
- Service to be effected by publication in a newspaper of wide circulation.
- Respondents directed to appear on the hearing date fixed for the main cause.
- No order as to costs.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (2)
- Civil Procedure Rules Order 5 Rule 18
- Advocates (Professional Conduct) Regulations Regulation 3(2)
Cases cited (2)
- Franco Mugumya v Total (U) Ltd (HCMA No. 28 of 2013)
- Noah Omondi v Civicon LDMA 119 of 2022
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.