Perfecto Pest Control Limited v Blue Financial Limited (Civil Cause 461 of 2011) [2021] MWHC 249 (8 February 2021)

. IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAWI LILONGWE DISTRICT REGISTRY CIVIL CAUSE NO: 461 OF 2011 BETWEEN: PERFECTO PEST CONTROL LIMITED.................................................... CLAIMANT BLUE FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED................................. RESPONDENT AND CORUM : JUSTICE RUTH M. CHINANGWA Salima. Counsel for Claimants Absent Unrepresented Nyirenda Court Clerk RULING The plaintiff in this matter claims damages for loss of business; interest at bank lending rate, on the damges for loss of business and costs of the action. The matter was scheduled for hearing at which the respondent was absent. Prior to the matter being set down for trial, the respondent was legally represented. On application of Counsel for respondents, they were withdrawn from representing the respondents for lack of further instructions to represent them at trial. This meant the respondents had to be personally served. The claimants argued that they had served the respondents through email on an address obtained on their website as deponed in the affidavit of service filed by the claimant’s counsel. The question arising is whether the mode and manner of sendee was appropriate to allow the court proceed with hearing and entering judgement in the absence of the respondent: Order 16 rule 7 (1c) and (3) of the Court (High Court) (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017? Order 8 rule 18 (a) of the Court (High Court) (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017 provides that service of documents on a body corporate shall be done in accordance with section 372 of the Companies Act. Section 372 of the Companies Act states as follows: A document in any legal proceedings may be served on a company— (V on by delivery to a person named as a director .of the company the register of by delivery io an employee of the company at. the companies; company's head office or principal place ■ of . ■ business; by leaving it at the company's registered office or address for service; by serving it in accordance with any directions as to service given by the Court having . jurisdiction in the proceedings; or (e) (2) in accordance with an agreement made with the company. The methods of service specified in subsection (I) are, notwithstanding. any other enactment; the only methods by which a document in legeil proceedings may be served on a company in Malawi. Having in mind the above law, the claimant did not serve notice of hearing according to the law. If the claimant was to serve by email it had to be by agreement with the defendant company. No such agreement was presented before the court. This matter is thus adjourned to a date to be fixed to allow the claimant to effect service as ■ provided under section 372 of the Companies Act. Pronounced this 8th day of February 2021 at LILONGWE R. M CHINANGWA JUDGE