Wakilii

Frokina International Ltd v Tororo Cement Co. Ltd. (Civil Suit No. 1215 of 1999)

High Court · [2000] UGHC 49 · 2000 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Preliminary objection to plaint on grounds that it disclosed no cause of action
Decision
Preliminary objection dismissed; matter to proceed to trial on merits; defendant granted leave to appeal the ruling

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 a plaint may disclose a cause of action without containing all facts constituting the cause of action, provided the violation by the defendant of a right of the plaintiff is shown. The plaint sufficiently disclosed that the plaintiff's premises were destroyed through the defendant's negligence. Whether particulars of negligence were adequately pleaded is a matter for hearing of evidence, not summary rejection. Preliminary objection overruled with costs in the cause.

Outcome

Preliminary objection dismissed; matter to proceed to trial on merits; defendant granted leave to appeal the ruling

Facts

On 18 August 1999, the defendant's truck and trailer rammed into the plaintiff's premises on Plot M 587 Nakivubo View, extensively destroying doors and walls. The plaintiff instituted Civil Suit No. 1215 of 1999 claiming damages for negligence and vicarious liability. The defendant raised a preliminary objection arguing that the plaint was defective under Order 7 rule 11(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules because it disclosed no cause of action, specifically that the plaint failed to plead particulars of the negligence on which the plaintiff relied. The plaintiff responded that paragraph 4 of the plaint sufficiently disclosed the cause of action.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action sufficient to defeat a preliminary objection under Order 7 rule 11(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether the plaint was defective for failing to plead particulars of negligence.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection overruled.
  • Costs in the cause.
  • Leave to appeal granted to the defendant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Cause of Action — Disclosure Requirements
In order for a cause of action to be disclosed, the plaint must show that the plaintiff had a right, that that right had been violated by the defendant, and that injury or loss had resulted. A plaint may disclose a cause of action without containing all the facts constituting the cause of action, provided that the violation by the defendant of a right of the plaintiff is shown.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Rejection of Plaint — Order 7 rule 11(a)
A plaint should not be rejected in a summary way under Order 7 rule 11(a) on grounds of failure to plead particulars of negligence. Whether particulars of negligence are adequately pleaded is a matter to be visited on the occasion of hearing of evidence, not at the preliminary objection stage. Where serious issues of law are the subject of a suit, they should not be decided in a summary way.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Procedural Requirements — Notice
An application to strike out pleadings does not require a formal application or prior notice in the written statement of defence. Even if the procedure used is irregular, the use of wrong procedure does not invalidate proceedings since it does not go to jurisdiction if there is no prejudice caused.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Civil Procedure Rules O.7 r.11(a)

Cases cited (7)

  • H. Katarahwire v Paul Lwanga (1988-90) HCB 86
  • Mukasa v Sigh & Others [1969] EA 442
  • Makula International v Cardinal Nsubuga & Another (1982) HCB II
  • H.M. Kayondo v Attorney General [1988-1990] HCB 127
  • Auto Garage & Others v Motokov (No. 3) [1971] EA 524
  • Lehe Motors Ltd v Overseas Motor Transport (T) Ltd [1959] EA 603
  • Katikiro of Buganda v Attorney General of Uganda [1958] EA 765

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Frokina International Ltd v Tororo Cement Co. Ltd. (Civil Suit No. 1215 of 1999) [2000] UGHC 49 (25 May 2000)
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.