Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Master of the High Court had no jurisdiction to strike out summary summons where adequate particulars of debt provided
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Court of Appeal allows appeal against striking out of summary summons, finding that: 1) the plaintiff bank had supplied adequate particulars of debt for the purposes of the rules of court; and 2) in a contested case, the Master of the High Court has no jurisdiction and his task is simply to transfer the case to the High Court once it is administratively ready for hearing.
Summary judgment – role of the Master of the High Court – how extensive must the particulars of debt be in order to satisfy the requirements of Ord. 4, r. 4 of the Rules of the Superior Courts, 1986 – aster struck out the summons pursuant to Ord. 63, r. 5 on the ground that the summons was defective for want of failure to disclose adequate particulars regarding interest – upheld the decision of the Master to strike out the summons – claim for interest had not been sufficiently particularised – particulars on the indorsement of claim – summary summons procedure – Order 37 RSC – Master has no jurisdiction to make final orders in contested cases – meaning of a “contested case” – plaintiff bank had supplied adequate particulars for the purposes of Ord. 4, r. 4 – appeal allowed
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
Relevant Links
