Meyrick v Julian (Divorce Cause No. 12 of 1943)
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 respondent's advocate enters appearance in divorce proceedings but subsequently ceases to act without the respondent furnishing a fresh address for service, service of an application for ancillary relief on that advocate remains good service. The respondent's failure to update the address for service does not invalidate service at the address originally furnished upon entering appearance.
Outcome
Alimony pendente lite awarded at Sh. 160 per month from date of service of petition
Facts
The petitioner filed a divorce petition on 15 March 1943. Messrs. Kaplan & Stratton entered appearance for the respondent on 29 March 1943. On 27 April 1943, the respondent's advocates informed the court and petitioner's advocates that they were no longer acting. The respondent took no steps to furnish a fresh address for service. The petitioner subsequently filed a summons dated 5 May 1943 seeking alimony pendente lite. The respondent's former advocates refused to accept service of the summons. The petition's prayer included a claim for alimony pending suit. The respondent had not filed the affidavit of property and income required by Rule 44(1) within fourteen days of entering appearance.
Issues
- Whether service of an application for alimony pendente lite on an advocate who entered appearance but subsequently ceased to act constitutes good service on the respondent where no fresh address for service has been furnished.
Orders
- Service of the application on Messrs. Kaplan & Stratton was good service on the respondent.
- Respondent to pay to the petitioner the sum of Sh. 160 per month as alimony pendente lite from the date of service of the petition.
- Liberty to both parties to apply.
- Costs of this application to the petitioner.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (5)
- Matrimonial Causes Ordinance s.24(1)
- Matrimonial Causes Rules r.8(1)
- Matrimonial Causes Rules r.44(1)
- Matrimonial Causes Rules r.49
- Rules of the Supreme Court O.III r.6
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.