Wakilii

Export Trading Company Limited v OBN Produce & Supply Company Limited (Miscellaneous Application 1871 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGCOMMC 34 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Miscellaneous application to strike out defence for late filing and general denials, arising from civil suit for debt
Decision
Defence struck out; default judgment entered for plaintiff; suit set down for formal proof

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 High Court struck out the defendant's Written Statement of Defence on two independent grounds: first, that it was filed 17 days after service of summons, exceeding the mandatory 15-day period without leave to extend time; and second, that it comprised general and evasive denials in breach of Order 6 Rules 8 and 10 and Order 8 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Default judgment was entered for the plaintiff with the matter set down for formal proof.

Outcome

Defence struck out; default judgment entered for plaintiff; suit set down for formal proof

Facts

The Applicant filed a civil suit for debt on 6 May 2024 and served the Respondent company with summons on 4 June 2024 through Yusuf Joseph Wojombuko, the manager of a supermarket owned by the Respondent. The Respondent filed its Written Statement of Defence on 21 June 2024, 17 days after service. The Respondent contested service, arguing that the manager was not a principal officer of the company under Order 29 Rule 2 of the CPR, and claimed it only learned of the suit when documents were dropped at a director's gate on 17 June 2024. The Applicant applied to strike out the defence for being filed out of time and for comprising general denials in breach of the pleading rules.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent's Written Statement of Defence is properly on record having been filed out of time.
  2. Whether the Respondent's Written Statement of Defence comprises general and/or evasive denials.

Orders

  • The Respondent's defence was filed out of time and is improperly on record.
  • The Written Statement of Defense comprises of general and evasive denials and is struck out.
  • Default judgment is entered for the Applicant in the main suit.
  • The suit is set down for formal proof.
  • The Respondent shall bear the costs of this application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Service on Companies — Principal Officer
Where a person served at a company's business premises identifies himself as manager, is represented by subordinate staff as manager, appears to be in charge in the absence of directors, and accepts court process on behalf of the company, such a person exercises sufficient authority to be considered a principal officer for purposes of Order 29 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Service of Process — Service on Companies — Agency
Service on a company is not confined to the modes in Order 29 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Under Order 5 Rule 10, service on a company can also be made on an agent empowered to accept service, and such agency may be created either by conduct or by law.
Civil Procedure — Time Limits — Filing of Defence — Mandatory Compliance
Under Order 8 Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, a defence must be filed and served within 15 days following service of summons. The filing and service of a defence must all be done within 15 days. Failure to comply entitles a plaintiff to have the suit set down for formal proof, unless time is enlarged by court order.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — General and Evasive Denials — Requirements
It is not sufficient for a defendant in his defence to deny generally the allegations in the statement of claim or to put the plaintiff to strict proof. The defendant must deal specifically with each allegation of fact, must not deny evasively, and must plead sufficient facts supporting the denials. Naked denials alone will not do.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — General and Evasive Denials — Consequences
A general or evasive denial renders the defence incurably defective and liable to be struck out. Even Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution cannot save a defence comprising general or evasive denials.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Purpose and Function
For a defence to comply with the Civil Procedure Rules, the grounds of defence must be made out, the narration underpinning such grounds must be made out, and both must be made out in a manner that is reasonably clear. A trial is a trial of both the plaintiff's grounds of claim and the defence's grounds for defence.

Legislation cited (14)

Cases cited (21)

  • Simon Tendo Kabenge v Barclays Bank Uganda Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2015)
  • Ecobank Uganda Limited v Kalsons Agrovet Concern Ltd & 2 Others (High Court Civil Suit No. 573 of 2016)
  • MHK Engineering Services (U) Ltd v Macdowell Limited (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 825 of 2018)
  • Stop and See (U) Ltd v Tropical Africa Bank Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 333 of 2010)
  • Halsbury's Laws of England, 5th Edition, Vol 14 P 137, Para 115 and P 342-343, Para 268
  • Lennard's Carrying Co Ltd v Asiatic Petroleum Co Ltd [1915] AC 705
  • Stephen Kasako v Christ's Heart Church Limited (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 831 of 2023)
  • Specon Services Limited v Onencan Habib (High Court Civil Appeal No. 92 of 2016)
  • Kiganga and Associates Gold Mining Co Ltd v Universal Gold NL [2000] 1 EA 134
  • Remco Ltd v Mistry Jadva Parbat and Co Ltd [2002] 1 EA 233
  • Besigye Kiiza v Museveni Yoweri Kaguta and Another [2001] UGSC 3
  • James Bahiguza and Another v Attorney General (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 269 of 2013)
  • Court of Appeal of Kenya: Civil Appeal Application No. 228 of 2013: Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korr Salt Vs Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & Wilfred Rottich Lesan
  • Twine Amos v Tamsuza James (High Court Revision No. 11 of 2009)
  • Ecobank Uganda Limited v Kalsons Agrovet Concern Ltd and Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 573 of 2016)
  • Nile Bank v Thomas Kato and Others (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1190 of 1999)
  • Vambeco Enterprises v Attorney General (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 265 of 2014)
  • MHK Engineering Services Limited v Macdowell Limited (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 723 of 2018)
  • Byaruhanga Africano v Uganda Electricity Distribution Co Ltd (UEDCL) (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 67 of 2022)
  • Byaruhanga Africano v Uganda Electricity Distribution Co Ltd (UEDCL) (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 67 of 2022)
  • Weinberger v Inglis [1916-17] All ER Rep 843

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Export Trading Company Limited v OBN Produce & Supply Company Limited (Miscellaneous Application 1871 of 2024) [2025] UGCommC 34 (12 March 2025)
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.