Wakilii

Dembe Trading Enterprises Ltd v Uganda Confidential Ltd and Anor (HCT-00-CC-CS 612 of 2006)

High Court · [2007] UGCOMMC 53 · 2007 Judgment for Plaintiff AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance civil suit for recovery of debt following dishonoured cheques and breach of payment agreement
Decision
Final judgment entered for plaintiff for liquidated sums with interest and costs after correcting procedural error

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

Held that Order 9 Rule 8, which permits interlocutory judgment and assessment of damages, applies only to plaints claiming pecuniary damages only or detention of goods. Where a plaint conjoins liquidated demands with claims for general damages, Rule 8 is inapplicable. The two rules operate disjunctively, not conjunctively. The court set aside the Registrar's erroneous entry of interlocutory judgment and instead entered final judgment under Order 9 Rule 6 for the liquidated sums claimed, with the plaintiff abandoning the general damages claim.

Outcome

Final judgment entered for plaintiff for liquidated sums with interest and costs after correcting procedural error

Facts

The plaintiff, a motor vehicle dealer, sold a Toyota Land Cruiser to the defendants for Shs.46,800,000 on 14 November 2005. The defendants paid Shs.20,000,000, leaving a balance of Shs.26,800,000. The defendants issued post-dated cheques which were dishonoured. On 29 June 2006, the second defendant entered into an agreement with the plaintiff's advocates undertaking to pay the outstanding balance plus interest and legal charges by 31 July 2006. The defendants failed to honour this agreement. The defendants did not file a defence. The plaintiff's counsel applied for interlocutory judgment, which the Registrar granted, setting the matter down for formal proof. Upon hearing, the judge identified that the wrong procedure had been followed.

Issues

  1. Whether Order 9 Rule 6 or Order 9 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules applies when a plaint contains both a claim for liquidated demand and a claim for general damages.
  2. Whether interlocutory judgment was correctly entered by the Registrar where the plaint contained conjoined claims for liquidated amounts and pecuniary damages.
  3. Whether the two rules should be applied conjunctively or disjunctively when a plaint contains mixed claims.

Orders

  • Interlocutory judgment entered by the Registrar set aside as having been entered in error.
  • All proceedings following the entry of interlocutory judgment set aside.
  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff against the defendants under Order 9 Rule 6 in the sum of Shs.26,800,000.00 being balance of purchase price.
  • Judgment entered for Shs.2,680,000.00 being legal costs referred to in the agreement of 29th June 2006.
  • Judgment entered for Shs.1,340,000.00 being agreed interest up to 31st July 2006.
  • Interest at 5% per annum awarded from 31st July 2006 to date of judgment.
  • Interest on decretal amount at court rate from date of judgment until payment in full.
  • Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Default Judgment — Distinction Between Order 9 Rule 6 and Order 9 Rule 8
Order 9 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules applies to plaints claiming liquidated demands only, permitting final judgment where the defendant fails to file a defence. Order 9 Rule 8 applies only to plaints claiming pecuniary damages only or detention of goods, permitting interlocutory judgment and assessment of damages. The two rules operate disjunctively and cannot be applied conjunctively to a plaint containing both liquidated claims and claims for general damages.
Civil Procedure — Interlocutory Judgment — Erroneous Entry
Where interlocutory judgment has been entered by a Registrar in error because the applicable rule was Order 9 Rule 6 and not Order 9 Rule 8, the court has power to set aside the erroneous interlocutory judgment and the subsequent proceedings, and enter the correct form of judgment under the applicable rule.
Civil Procedure — Liquidated Demands — Definition and Scope
A liquidated demand under Order 9 Rule 6 refers to specified sums of money in the category of debts or already ascertained sums of money due from one party to another by the time the suit is filed, as distinct from claims for damages which must be proved and assessed by the court.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (2)

  • Mwatshu v Maro [1967] EA 42
  • Haji Asumani Mutekanga v Equator Growers (U) Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1995)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Dembe Trading Enterprises Ltd v Uganda Confidential Ltd and Anor (HCT-00-CC-CS 612 of 2006) [2007] UGCommC 53 (30 May 2007)
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.