There is a significant procedural omission in this provision. The provision fails to satisfy the fundamental right to notice; a right that is held by the respondent. Merely dropping the documents cannot be adequate; it does not satisfy the right to notice. There must be a prerequisite that the person serving the documents explain to the respondent the nature and contents of the documents and the consequences that would ensue in the event that he ignores the documents. Since the respondent is not well versed on these matters, it is imperative that he be provided with the necessary knowledge. If one hopes to defend one's rights effectively, one certainly must have, not full knowledge, but at least minimum knowledge of how his rights are going to be affected. This must be done at the commencement of proceedings. In this case by the person serving the documents. To omit explanation of the nature of the documents to the respondent is to deprive him of his significant procedural right. It is to fail to protect the respondent, which failure is unjustifiable and could largely prejudice him. Explaining the nature of the documents could assist a respondent who is illiterate and might not even have an idea of what to do next with the court papers he has been presented with. While protecting and guarding against the applicant's rights is an appropriate thing to do, losing sight of the respondent's rights, especially his elementary procedural rights, does not find proper justification in the eyes of justice and reason. And will never do.
If the Rules of Court (High Court Act) Order 8 rule 2 sub rule 3 makes provision for the person serving a process or document to explain the nature and contents of the documents to the other party, why isn't it necessary here?
