Wakilii

Frokina International v Tororo Cement Co. Limited (Civil Suit 1215 of 1999)

High Court · [2000] UGHC 41 · 2000 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Preliminary objection to strike out plaint for failure to disclose a cause of action
Decision
Preliminary objection dismissed; defendant granted leave to appeal

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 discloses a cause of action where it shows the plaintiff had a right, that right was violated by the defendant, and injury resulted. The plaint need not contain all facts constituting a cause of action or particulars of negligence at the pleadings stage, provided the defendant's violation of the plaintiff's right is shown. The preliminary objection was overruled.

Outcome

Preliminary objection dismissed; defendant granted leave to appeal

Facts

The plaintiff alleged that 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 defendant raised a preliminary objection arguing the plaint was defective under Order 7 rule 11(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules for failing to disclose a cause of action, specifically contending that particulars of negligence were not pleaded. The plaintiff responded that the written statement of defence gave no notice of the preliminary objection and that paragraph 4 of the plaint sufficiently indicated the driver's responsibility for the damage.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action sufficient to withstand a preliminary objection under Order 7 rule 11(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether failure to plead particulars of negligence rendered the plaint defective and subject to rejection.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection overruled.
  • Costs in the cause.
  • Defendant granted leave to appeal the ruling.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Cause of Action — Test for Disclosure
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.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Particulars of Negligence — Not Required at Pleadings Stage
A plaint may disclose a cause of action without containing all the facts constituting a cause of action or particulars of negligence, provided that the violation by the defendant of a right of the plaintiff is shown.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Procedure — No Formal Application Required
An application to strike out pleadings does not require a formal application or prior notice in the written statement of defence. Use of wrong procedure does not invalidate proceedings if it does not go to jurisdiction and no prejudice is caused.
Civil Procedure — Summary Determination — Serious Issues of Law
Where serious issues of law are the subject of a suit, they should not be decided in a summary way by way of preliminary objection.

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 v Tororo Cement Co. Limited (Civil Suit 1215 of 1999) [2000] UGHC 41 (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.