Wakilii

Gunter Piber & Anor v E. Krall Investments (U) Ltd & 4 Ors (Misc. Applic. No 103 of 2008)

High Court · [2008] UGHC 147 · 2008 Defence Struck Out; Plaint Rejected AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out defence arising from civil suit for permanent injunction and breach of licence agreement
Decision
Both the defence and the plaint rejected due to pleading defects

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 struck out the respondents' written statement of defence for failure to comply with Order 6 rules 8 and 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules, as it contained general denials without specific traversal of material allegations. The court also rejected the applicants' plaint under Order 6 rule 11(d), holding that the claim for a permanent injunction against a registered proprietor was barred by section 176 of the Registration of Titles Act, as it amounted to an action for ejectment. No order as to costs was made.

Outcome

Both the defence and the plaint rejected due to pleading defects

Facts

The applicants filed a civil suit against the respondents seeking a permanent injunction to restrain interference with their licence over land at Masese, Jinja District. The applicants claimed they held a licence from the first respondent confirmed by written agreement in 2005, and had paid monies on the first respondent's behalf to Kilembe Mines Ltd and in legal fees. They also claimed to have lent the first respondent US$150,000. The respondents filed a written statement of defence containing general denials. The applicants then brought this application to strike out the defence for failure to comply with pleading rules. The first respondent held a registered sub-lease over the disputed land from Kilembe Mines Ltd.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondents properly filed an amended written statement of defence without leave of court.
  2. Whether the respondent's written statement of defence filed on 10/06/08 contravened the requirements for pleading contained in Order 6 rules 8 and 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  3. Whether the respondent's defence ought to be struck out.
  4. Whether the applicants' plaint disclosed a cause of action that was barred by section 176 of the Registration of Titles Act.

Orders

  • Respondents' written statement of defence filed on 10/06/08 struck out.
  • Respondents' amended written statement of defence filed on 23/06/08 without leave rejected as improperly filed.
  • Applicants' plaint rejected under Order 6 rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Amendment of Written Statement of Defence — Amendment Without Leave of Court
A defendant who has not set up a counterclaim or setoff has no right under Order 6 rule 21 of the Civil Procedure Rules to file an amended written statement of defence without leave of court. Such an amendment is only permitted within specified timeframes for defendants who have filed counterclaims or setoffs, and is limited to amendment of the counterclaim or setoff only.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Written Statement of Defence — General Denials — Order 6 Rule 8
Order 6 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules is mandatory and requires each party to deal specifically with each allegation of fact which he does not admit the truth of. It is not sufficient to deny generally the grounds alleged; each party must traverse specifically each allegation of fact which he does not intend to admit and make clear how much of his opponent's case he disputes.
Civil Procedure — Striking Out Pleadings — Order 6 Rule 30 — Failure to Disclose Reasonable Answer
Where a party's pleading fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of Order 6 rule 8 by containing general denials without specific traversal of material allegations, the pleading discloses no reasonable answer to the claim and may be struck out under Order 6 rule 30 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Land & Property — Registered Land — Actions Against Registered Proprietor — Section 176 Registration of Titles Act
No action of ejectment or other action for the recovery of land shall lie against a person registered as proprietor under the Registration of Titles Act except in the cases specified in section 176. An action for a permanent injunction by a licensee against a registered proprietor that would amount to ejectment is barred by section 176, and the production of the registered certificate of title is an absolute bar and estoppel to such action.
Civil Procedure — Rejection of Plaint — Order 6 Rule 11(d) — Suit Barred by Law
Where it appears from the statement in the plaint that the suit is barred by any law, the plaint may be rejected under Order 6 rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Rules. A plaint seeking a permanent injunction that would constitute an action for ejectment against a registered proprietor is barred by section 176 of the Registration of Titles Act and is liable to rejection.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (6)

  • Nile Bank Ltd v Thomas Kato & Others [1997-2001] EA 325
  • Lever Brothers v Associated Newspapers [1907] KB 628
  • Chandler v Kelly [1972] 2 All ER 942
  • Executrix of the Estate of the Late Christine Mary Tebajukira & Deborah Namukasa v Noel Grace Dhalita Stananzi (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1988)
  • Francis Butagira v Deborah Namukasa (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 1989)
  • Obidegwu F v D B Semakadde (Civil Suit No. 59 of 1992)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Gunter Piber & Anor Vs E. Krall Investments (U) Ltd & 4 Ors (Misc. Applic. No 103 of 2008) [2008] UGHC 147 (13 October 2008)
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.