Wakilii

Joshi v Uganda Sugar Factory Limited (Civil Appeal No. 16 of 1968)

East African Court of Appeal · [1968] EACA 19 · 1968 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from a ruling of the High Court of Uganda dismissing an application for further and better particulars of a pleading in a pending civil suit for personal injury damages
Decision
Appeal dismissed; High Court ruling refusing to order further and better particulars upheld

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 of Appeal split 2-1 on whether a defendant who admits an accident occurred but refuses to admit the time must provide particulars of the time alleged. The majority (de Lestang VP and Spry JA) held that a defendant adopting a purely defensive posture by putting the plaintiff to proof need not give particulars of matters the plaintiff must prove. Law JA dissented, holding that where time is material to allegations of negligence relating to darkness and lighting, a refusal to admit the time while admitting date and place is evasive and requires particulars. Appeal dismissed.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; High Court ruling refusing to order further and better particulars upheld

Facts

The appellant sued the respondent company for personal injuries arising from a collision between his motor-cycle and the respondent's tractor and trailer on 2 February 1965 at about 7.45 p.m. on a road in Bukolongo Division near Lugazi. The appellant alleged negligence including that the tractor was driven without effective lighting and the driver failed to stop when his view was obstructed by darkness. The respondent admitted the accident occurred on the stated date and place but did not admit it occurred at 7.45 p.m. The appellant sought further and better particulars of the time the respondent alleged the accident occurred. The High Court dismissed the application. The appellant appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether a defendant who admits the date and place of an accident but refuses to admit the time at which it occurred must provide further and better particulars of the time he alleges the accident took place.
  2. Whether a pleading that does not admit the time of an accident is evasive within the meaning of Order 6 rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Further and Better Particulars — Defendant's Obligation to Particularise Non-Admission
A defendant who adopts a purely defensive attitude by putting the plaintiff to proof of allegations is not required to provide further and better particulars of matters which the plaintiff must prove to succeed, even where those matters may be material to the case.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Evasive Denial — Time of Accident
A denial or non-admission of the time at which an admitted accident occurred is not evasive within the meaning of Order 6 rule 9 where the defendant is not setting up a positive case but merely putting the plaintiff to proof, even where time may be material to allegations of negligence.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Evasive Denial — Material Factor (Dissenting View)
Where a defendant admits the date and place of an accident but refuses to admit the time, and time is material to allegations of negligence relating to lighting and darkness, the refusal to admit the time implies a positive assertion that the accident occurred at a different time and constitutes an evasive plea requiring particulars under Order 6 rule 9.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Civil Procedure (Revised) Rules 1948 Order 6 rule 9
  • Civil Procedure (Revised) Rules 1948 Order 6 rule 3
  • Civil Procedure (Revised) Rules 1948 Order 6 rule 3A
  • Civil Procedure (Revised) Rules 1948 Order 6 rule 7

Cases cited (6)

  • Hall v London and North-Western Railway Co (1877) L.T. 848
  • Pinson v Lloyds Bank (1941) 2 All E.R. 636
  • Fox v H Wood (1962) 3 All E.R. 1100
  • Chapple v Electrical Trades Union (1961) 3 All E.R. 612
  • Thorpe v Holdsworth (1876) 3 Ch. D. 637
  • Weinberger v Inglis (1916-17) All E.R. Rep. 843

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Joshi v Uganda Sugar Factory Limited (Civil Appeal No. 16 of 1968) [1968] EACA 19 (11 July 1968)
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.