Wakilii

Clovergem Fish & Foods Limited v Verjee & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2001)

Court of Appeal · [2006] UGCA 46 · 2006 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from a High Court judgment entered under Order 15 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules following the appellant's non-appearance
Decision
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and suit remitted to the High Court for retrial

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 of Appeal held that where a defendant has entered appearance but fails to attend on the day a suit is called, the plaintiff must still formally prove the claim, and may not obtain judgment under Order 15 rule 4 without adducing evidence. The sums claimed were not liquidated, being neither a specific sum due under a contract nor ascertainable as a mere matter of arithmetic. The respondents were therefore obliged to prove their claims by oral or documentary evidence or by calling witnesses. The trial Judge erred in entering judgment without such proof. The appeal was allowed, the High Court judgment and orders set aside, and the suit remitted for retrial.

Outcome

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and suit remitted to the High Court for retrial

Facts

The first respondent sued the appellant company claiming US$240,000 for breach of a contract of service, while the second respondent claimed US$550,781.60 for breach of a contract for the supply of goods and services. The appellant denied privity to the service contract and the existence of any supply contract, and counterclaimed for general damages for negligent advice given by the first respondent. The first respondent pleaded ratification of the service contract. The respondents amended the plaint, with the second respondent reducing the special damages claim. After several adjournments, the case was called for conferencing on 8 June 2000, when the respondents were present but the appellant was unrepresented. On the respondents' application, the trial Judge entered judgment under Order 15 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules without requiring formal proof, ordering the appellant to pay all sums claimed with costs and interest at 18% per annum, and dismissing the counterclaim with costs.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial Judge was entitled to enter judgment for the respondents under Order 15 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules without requiring formal proof of their claims.
  2. Whether the sums claimed by the respondents were liquidated such that they could be awarded without evidence.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Judgment and orders of the High Court set aside.
  • Suit remitted to the High Court for retrial.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Judgments — Order 15 rule 4 — Defendant's failure to appear after entering appearance
Where a defendant has entered appearance but fails to appear in person or through advocate on the day the suit is called for hearing, the plaintiff must formally prove the claim; judgment cannot be entered under Order 15 rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules without proof.
Civil Procedure — Damages — Liquidated versus unliquidated claims — Need for formal proof
A claim is liquidated only where it is a specific sum due and payable under a contract that is already ascertained or ascertainable as a mere matter of arithmetic; otherwise the claimant must adduce oral or documentary evidence, or call witnesses, to establish the claim before judgment may be entered.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (2)

  • Eksteen Vs Kutosi S/O Bukira (1957) 2 K1R90K
  • Mwatsuni Vs Maro [1967] EA at 43

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Clovergem Fish & Foods Limited Vs Verjee & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2001) [2006] UGCA 46 (24 August 2006)
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.