Mutweita v Akamba Handicraft Industries Ltd (Civil Suit No. 1711 of 1953)
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 service on a limited company must strictly follow the statutory procedure in section 349(1) of the Companies Ordinance, which requires leaving the document at or sending it by post to the registered office. The words 'leaving at' mean leaving the summons with someone in the office or within the office premises, not affixing it to the outer door. Service by affixing to the door is invalid and Order 5 rule 14 cannot be invoked for service on corporations. The judgment by default was set aside with costs against the plaintiff.
Outcome
Judgment by default set aside; defendant entitled to defend the suit on the merits if plaintiff re-serves according to law
Facts
The plaintiff sued the defendant company and purported to effect service by affixing a copy of the summons to the closed outer door of the company's registered office at Kiburi House, Nairobi. The process server made several visits and found the office closed on each occasion. On the basis of this return, the Registrar entered judgment by default of appearance. The managing director of the defendant company deposed that he was present at the office during the alleged visits, found nothing affixed to the door, and only discovered the summons later in a bundle of old newspapers. The defendant applied to set aside the judgment on the ground that there had been no valid service.
Issues
- Whether service on a limited company by affixing a summons to the closed outer door of its registered office constitutes valid service under section 349(1) of the Companies Ordinance.
- Whether the special statutory procedure for service on companies prescribed by the Companies Ordinance excludes the general procedure under Order 5 rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- Whether the court should exercise its discretion to set aside a judgment entered by default where service was invalid.
Orders
- Judgment by default set aside.
- Execution raised.
- Plaintiff to pay defendant's costs of the application.
- Plaintiff to pay costs thrown away.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (7)
- Civil Procedure Ordinance s.2
- Companies Ordinance (Cap. 288) s.349(1)
- Civil Procedure (Revised) Rules 1948 Order 5 rule 14
- Civil Procedure (Revised) Rules 1948 Order 9 rule 10
- Civil Procedure (Revised) Rules 1948 Order 9 rule 24
- Civil Procedure (Revised) Rules 1948 Order 28 rule 2
- Civil Procedure (Revised) Rules 1948 Order 48 rule 2(1)
Cases cited (4)
- White v Land and Water Co (1883) WN 174
- Price v Bala and Festiniog Railway Co (1884) 50 LT 787
- In re Fortune Copper Mining Company LR 10 Eq 390
- Watson v Sheather (1886) 2 TLR 473
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.