Uganda Telecom Limited v ZTE Corporation (Civil Appeal No 03 of 2017)

Supreme Court · [2017] UGSC 93 · 2017 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Second appeal to the Supreme Court from a Court of Appeal decision upholding the High Court's deferral of a ruling on a preliminary objection

Decision

Appeal dismissed; case file remitted to the High Court for hearing on the merits before another judge

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 5 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Supreme Court dismissed a second appeal challenging the trial judge's deferral of a ruling on a preliminary objection that the plaint disclosed no cause of action. The Court held that a trial judge has discretion to dispose of a point of law at or after the hearing, so deferring the ruling was permissible. However, the judge's reason — that he needed to hear more evidence — was erroneous, since under Order 7 Rule 11 a court determines whether a cause of action exists from the plaint and its annextures alone. Nonetheless, the plaint, read with the Local Purchase Orders and Repayment Agreement, disclosed a cause of action. Both grounds failed; the file was remitted to the High Court for trial before another judge.

Facts

ZTE Corporation, as plaintiff, filed HCCS No. 169 of 2013 in the Commercial Division against Uganda Telecom Ltd, claiming USD 6,738,272.38 for breach of contract. Uganda Telecom denied the claim and raised a preliminary objection that the plaint disclosed no cause of action, contending there was no contractual relationship between the parties and that ZTE therefore lacked locus standi, and prayed that the plaint be struck out. The trial judge declined to resolve the objection on the pleadings alone, holding that it required clarification of factual matters, and stayed his decision until after hearing evidence. The Court of Appeal held that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and ordered the file remitted to the High Court for hearing. The plaint, together with annexed Local Purchase Orders and a Repayment Agreement, indicated that Uganda Telecom had ordered and received goods and services from ZTE and had undertaken in writing to pay for them before defaulting.

Issues

Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the trial judge had discretion to defer the ruling on whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action under Order 7 Rule 11 until after hearing more evidence.
Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the authority of Attorney General v Tinyefuza was applicable.

Orders

This appeal is dismissed with costs here and in the Court of Appeal.
The file shall be immediately remitted to the High Court for hearing on the merits before another judge.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Rejection of Plaint — Determining a Cause of Action under Order 7 Rule 11

In determining whether a plaint discloses a cause of action under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court must look only at the plaint and its annextures, and nowhere else.

Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Discretion to Defer Ruling

A trial judge has discretion to dispose of a point of law, including whether a plaint discloses a cause of action, at or after the hearing, and may defer the ruling on a preliminary objection to judgment.

Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Reasons for Deferral Must Have a Basis in Law

Although a trial judge may defer a ruling on a preliminary objection, deferring it on the ground that further evidence beyond the plaint and its annextures is needed to determine whether a cause of action exists is erroneous and cannot stand.

Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Test for a Cause of Action — Curing Defects by Amendment

A cause of action is disclosed where the plaint shows that the plaintiff enjoyed a right, that right was violated, and the defendant is liable; any omission or defect in the pleading may be cured by amendment.

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Interference with a Trial Judge's Exercise of Discretion

An appellate court should not interfere with a trial judge's exercise of discretion unless the judge misdirected himself and thereby reached a wrong decision, or it is manifest that he was clearly wrong and injustice resulted.

Legislation cited (6)

Civil Procedure Rules Order 7 Rule 11
Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 Rule 27
Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 Rule 28
Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 Rule 29
Constitution of Uganda Article 126(2)(b)
Constitution of Uganda Article 126(2)(e)

Cases cited (9)

Attorney General v Major General David Tinyefuza (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
N.A.S Airport Ltd v Attorney General of Kenya [1959] EA 53
Wycliffe Kiggundu v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 27 of 1992)
Mulindwa Birimumaso v Government Central Purchasing Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2002)
M'bogo v Shah [1968] EA 93
Uganda Development Bank v National Insurance Corporation & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 28 of 1995)
Everett v Ribbands and Another [1952] 2 QB 198
Tororo Cement Co. Ltd v Frokina International Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2001)
Auto Garage & Anor v Motokov (No. 3) [1971] EA 514

Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.