Vasquez v Wharton

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Court: Court of Appeal (Belize)
• Judge: Staine, J.
• Judgment Date: 03 June 1974
• Neutral Citation: BZ 1974 CA 22
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal
• Date: 03 June 1974

Court of Appeal

Staine, J.

Civil Appeal

Vasquez

and

Wharton

Mr. D. R. Lindo for the appellant

The respondent in person

Practice and Procedure - Summons — Service

Practice and Procedure - Judgment — Setting aside

Practice and Procedure - Summons — Irregularity of service

Real Property - Landlord and Tenant

Facts: Purported service of summons on appellant/defendant a nullity — Matter heard before inferior court in absence of defendant — Inferior court acted without jurisdiction in hearing matter before it

Facts: Summons not served on defendant — Matter heard before magistrate in absence of defendant, and judgment awarded plaintiff

Facts: Summons left by bailiff with mother of defendant — Whether service of a true copy of the summons is effective service of the summons within the meaning of Section 14, District Courts (Procedure) Ordinance, Chapter II

Facts: Magistrate awarded plaintiff/respondent arrears of rent due and costs — Defendant absent

Held: Appeal allowed — Judgment set aside — New hearing ordered

Held: — Purported service of summons ruled to be a nullity on appeal by defendant — Appeal allowed — Judgment set aside.

Held: That purported service was a nullity — Appeal allowed — Judgment set aside — New trial ordered

Held: Court acted without jurisdiction as purported service of summons on defendant/appellant declared a nullity — Judgment set aside — New hearing ordered.

1 This is an appeal against a decision of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction for the Belize Judicial District whereby judgment was given for the plaintiff /respondent in the sum of $150.00 for arrears of rent due and $1.75 Costs.

2 The appeal is brought on two grounds namely-

• (1) The Inferior Court had no jurisdiction in the matter inasmuch as the summons had not been served on the defendant;

• (2) There was not sufficient evidence to sustain the decision.

3 At the hearing of the appeal, Counsel for the appellant informed the Court that in reality he was pursuing only one ground of Appeal, and that the second ground stated, was merely an elaboration of the first ground.

4 Mr. Lindo submitted that the evidence before the Magistrate was insufficient to enable him to be satisfied that the defendant/appellant had been served with the Summons and therefore the Magistrate should not have proceeded to hear the case in the absence of the defendant. Mr. Lindo pointed out that the witness Skeen gave no evidence as to how he knew the address at which...