Wakilii

Byaruhanga v Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Limited (UEDCL) (Miscellaneous Application No. 67 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 45 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out defence in a negligence suit arising from Civil Suit No. 032 of 2022
Decision
Application to strike out defence dismissed with costs to the respondent

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 held that a defendant's written statement of defence is sufficient if it denies the plaintiff's allegations and puts the plaintiff to strict proof, even without pleading detailed facts. The defence was not evasive or a general denial where the defendant specifically denied negligence and provided factual responses requiring the plaintiff to prove the underlying negligence claim. The application to strike out the defence was dismissed.

Outcome

Application to strike out defence dismissed with costs to the respondent

Facts

The applicant filed a negligence suit (Civil Suit No. 032 of 2022) alleging that the respondent's electricity pole fell on his house in Kamwenge District on 2 April 2020, causing structural damage. The respondent filed a written statement of defence denying negligence. The applicant then brought this application seeking to strike out the defence on grounds that it contained only general denials contrary to Order 6 rules 8, 10 and 30 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and sought judgment on liability. The applicant alleged the respondent failed to respond specifically to his pleadings and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The respondent contended that its defence was lawful, specifically denied negligence under paragraphs 4, 5 and 9, and accused the applicant of maliciously removing page 2 of the defence to mislead the court.

Issues

  1. Whether the written statement of defence filed by the Respondent offends Order 6 rules 8, 10 and 30 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Pleadings — Written Statement of Defence — Sufficiency of Denial
A defendant is not required to plead detailed facts in a written statement of defence but must specifically deny the plaintiff's allegations and put the plaintiff to strict proof of the claim.
Pleadings — General Denial — Distinction from Specific Denial
A denial is not evasive or general where a defendant specifically denies the cause of action (such as negligence) and states that the plaintiff will be put to strict proof, thereby requiring the plaintiff to prove each element of the claim at trial.
Pleadings — Striking Out Defence — Test for Evasive Denial
A defence is liable to be struck out under Order 6 rules 8, 10 and 30 of the Civil Procedure Rules only where it fails to deal specifically with each allegation or answers the claim evasively without addressing the point of substance.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (4)

  • MHK Engineering Services (U) Ltd vs Macdowell Limited
  • Weinberger v Inglis (1916-17) All ER Rep 843
  • Namadashanker Manishanker Joshi v Uganda Sugar Factory Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 16 of 1968)
  • Balinda Prasad Vs. United Bank of India Limited and others, AIR 1962 Pat 153

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Byaruhanga v Uganda Electricity Distribution Company Limited (UEDCL) (Miscellaneous Application No. 67 of 2022) [2023] UGHCCD 45 (27 February 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.