Ram v Ram and Others (C.C No. 276 of 1933)
Ram v Ram and Others (C.C No. 276 of 1933) [1935] EACA 148 (1 January 1935)
The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to judgment in default of defence against the firm because the first and third defendants should be allowed to amend their defence to clarify it is on behalf of the firm, following the authority in Ellis v. Wadeson. The court further held that the second defendant, despite not appearing under protest, was not precluded from denying partnership, as the relevant rule was not intended to remove such rights and the parties had agreed to leave the issue of his liability for later determination. Finally, the court found that the defendants' denial…
Source excerpt
- Partnership Liability
- Firm Defence Pleadings
- Amendment Of Pleadings
- Appearance Under Protest