Wakilii

Comfoam (U) Ltd v Royikems Industries Ltd (H.C.Miscellaneous Application No. 49 of 2021)

High Court · [2021] UGCOMMC 100 · 2021 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Oral application by respondent arising from underlying civil suit for trademark infringement
Decision
Application dismissed; main application to proceed

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 declined to order cross-examination of the applicant's deponent on his affidavit in support of an application to amend pleadings. The respondent failed to show sufficient reasons justifying cross-examination. The paragraphs in question were straightforward, the matters raised would be dealt with at trial, and immediate cross-examination would cause unnecessary delay and potential injustice. The application was dismissed.

Outcome

Application dismissed; main application to proceed

Facts

Comfoam (U) Ltd commenced Civil Suit 699 of 2020 against Royikems Industries Ltd for trademark infringement. During proceedings, Comfoam discovered that Royikems had registered industrial designs resembling Comfoam's trademark and get-up. Comfoam applied to amend its plaint to include these facts and seek revocation of the industrial designs. Royikems brought an oral application under Order 19 rules 1 and 2 CPR to cross-examine Comfoam's General Manager on his affidavit in support of the amendment application, specifically on paragraphs 3, 4-7 concerning the discovery of the industrial design registrations.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent had demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant cross-examination of the applicant's deponent on his affidavit in support of the application.
  2. Whether cross-examination would assist in resolving the issue before the court or cause unnecessary delay.

Orders

  • Application for cross-examination dismissed.
  • Parties to proceed with the application for amendment of the plaint on its merits on 20 April 2021 at 9:00am.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Cross-Examination on Affidavits — Discretion to Order Cross-Examination
Under Order 19 rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court has discretion to order cross-examination of a deponent on their affidavit, but the applicant must demonstrate sufficient grounds showing that cross-examination will assist in resolving the issue before the court and will not result in injustice or delay.
Civil Procedure — Cross-Examination on Affidavits — Factors Governing Discretion
In exercising discretion to allow cross-examination on affidavit evidence, the court considers (i) the importance of the issue; (ii) whether cross-examination will unduly delay the trial or expeditious disposal; and (iii) whether the cross-examination is likely to elucidate the relevant issues in controversy.
Civil Procedure — Amendment of Pleadings — Cross-Examination on Supporting Affidavit
Where an application seeks leave to amend pleadings and the matters raised in the affidavit in support are straightforward and will be dealt with at a later stage of trial, cross-examination of the deponent at the interlocutory stage would cause unnecessary delay and potential injustice and should not be ordered.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (2)

  • Lt. Gen. (Rtd) Henry Tumukunde v Attorney General and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 489 of 2020)
  • Kamba Saleh

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Comfoam (U) Ltd v Royikems Industries Ltd (H.C.Miscellaneous Application No. 49 of 2021) [2021] UGCommC 100 (3 March 2021)
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.