Wakilii

Allelula Reflexology Health Solutions and Nutritional Research Centre Limited and 2 Others v Attorney General (Civil Suit 637 of 2016)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 357 · 2023 Preliminary Objections Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on preliminary objections raised by the Plaintiffs challenging the Defendant's written statement of defence in a civil suit for damages arising from a prior judicial review decision
Decision
Preliminary objections dismissed; suit to proceed to hearing on the question of damages

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains 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 Court dismissed all three preliminary objections raised by the Plaintiffs. The written statement of defence was not struck out because defendants are not required to make specific denials to claims for damages under Order 6 rules 8 and 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The admission made by the Defendant related only to previously litigated facts from a judicial review proceeding and did not constitute an admission of liability for damages. No judgment on admission was entered because the Defendant denied the Plaintiffs' entitlement to damages.

Outcome

Preliminary objections dismissed; suit to proceed to hearing on the question of damages

Facts

The Plaintiffs, reflexology centres operating in Uganda, brought a suit seeking compensation for losses suffered during a ban imposed on their operations by the Minister of Health. The ban had been successfully challenged in a prior judicial review proceeding (HCMC No. 12 of 2011) in which the High Court quashed the Minister's decision. The present suit sought damages arising from that wrongful ban. The Defendant filed a written statement of defence admitting the facts proven in the judicial review case but denying the Plaintiffs' entitlement to damages. The Plaintiffs raised three preliminary objections: that the defence should be struck out for evasive denials, that judgment on admission should be entered, and that judgment should be entered on liquidated claims with the remainder set down for formal proof.

Issues

  1. Whether the Defendant's written statement of defence should be struck out for containing evasive or general denials and disclosing no reasonable answer to the claims
  2. Whether judgment on admission should be entered in favour of the Plaintiffs
  3. Whether judgment should be entered on the liquidated claim with the rest of claims set down for formal proof

Orders

  • The preliminary objections raised by the Plaintiffs are dismissed.
  • Costs of the preliminary objections awarded to the Defendant.
  • The hearing of the suit shall proceed on the question of damages which is contested.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Denial of Claims for Damages — Requirement for Specific Denials
Under Order 6 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a defendant is not required to make a specific denial in respect of a claim for damages. A general denial of liability for damages is a sufficient defence that meets the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Evasive Denials — Duty to Answer Point of Substance
Where facts have been previously proved and admitted in prior litigation between the same parties, a defendant is not required to make specific denials of those facts in subsequent pleadings. The defendant need only deny that which is contested, such as the quantum of damages claimed.
Civil Procedure — Judgment on Admission — Discretionary Nature and Requirements
Judgment on admission under Order 13 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules is not a matter of right but one of discretion. The admission must be unambiguous, clear, unequivocal and positive. The discretion should only be exercised in plain cases where admissions of fact are so clear that they amount to an admission of liability entitling the plaintiff to judgment.
Civil Procedure — Judgment on Admission — Admission of Facts versus Admission of Liability
An admission of facts that were the subject of previous litigation does not constitute an admission of liability for damages arising from those facts. Where a defendant admits facts but denies liability for damages, no judgment on admission can be entered on the claim for damages.
Civil Procedure — Estoppel — Withdrawal of Election Not to Pursue Preliminary Objections
Where a party communicates an unequivocal decision not to pursue preliminary objections and the opposite party and the court rely on that representation, the same issue cannot be reopened and the party is estopped from raising it again.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (4)

  • Nile Bank and Another v Thomas Kato (HCMA No. 1190 of 1999)
  • Future Stars Investment (U) Ltd v Nasuru Yusuf (HCCS No. 0012 of 2017)
  • Cassam v Sachania [1982] KLR 191
  • The Board of Governors Nebbi Town S.S.S v Jaker Food Stores Limited (HCMA No. 0062 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Allelula Reflexology Health Solutions and Nutritional Research Centre Limited and 2 Others v Attorney General (Civil Suit 637 of 2016) [2023] UGHCCD 357 (27 November 2023)
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.