Wakilii

Kiggundu and Others v Kibumbi and Another [2024] UGHC 1217

High Court · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application to strike out written statements of defence and enter judgment on admission in a pending civil suit
Decision
Application dismissed; matter to proceed to formal proof of the underlying civil suit

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 held that the Respondents' written statements of defence were not general or evasive denials and satisfied the requirements of Order 6 rules 8 and 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The defences denied participation in the transactions concerning the suit land and put the Applicants to strict proof. The court further held that the admissions made were not clear, specific, and unambiguous enough to warrant judgment on admission under Order 13 rule 6, particularly where the suit land was no longer registered in the Respondents' names. Application dismissed; matter set down for formal proof.

Outcome

Application dismissed; matter to proceed to formal proof of the underlying civil suit

Facts

The Applicants filed Civil Suit No. 1185 of 2023 seeking cancellation of a sale and transfer by which the 1st Respondent was allegedly registered as administrator of their grandfather's estate (the late Alisitaliko Kirimumunda) over land in Busiro Block 543-544 Plot 15 at Lugo under Instrument No. WAK-00113692 dated 3 November 2017, and subsequently transferred the land to the 2nd Respondent under Instrument No. WAK-001117652 dated 23 December 2017. The 2nd Respondent allegedly subdivided and transferred portions to various defendants. The Applicants alleged that the Administration Cause Number relied upon by the 1st Respondent did not exist. Both Respondents filed written statements of defence denying involvement and knowledge of each other or the transactions. The Applicants then brought this interlocutory application seeking to strike out the defences as offending the Civil Procedure Rules and for judgment on admission based on alleged admissions in the defences.

Issues

  1. Whether the written statement of defence filed by the Respondents offends Order 6 rules 8, 10 and 30 of the Civil Procedure Rules?
  2. Whether a judgment on admission should be issued against the Respondents?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • The suit shall be set down for formal proof.
  • Costs be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Pleadings — Written Statement of Defence — Specific Denial
Under Order 6 rules 8 and 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules, it is not sufficient for a defendant to deny generally the grounds alleged in the statement of claim; the defendant must deal specifically with each allegation of fact which he or she does not admit. However, a defence that denies participation in the transactions at issue and puts the plaintiff to proof of those transactions is sufficient and not a general or evasive denial.
Pleadings — Effect of Denial
A defendant is not under any legal obligation to plead facts. As long as the defendant denies the plaintiff's claim as not being true, that is sufficient to put the plaintiff to the task of proving the claim.
Judgment on Admission — Requirements
Under Order 13 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court may grant judgment on admission of facts at any stage of a suit. However, the judge's discretion is to be exercised only in plain cases where the admission is unambiguous, clear, unequivocal, and positive. Where the alleged admission is not clear and specific, it is not appropriate to enter judgment on admission.
Judgment on Admission — Party No Longer Proprietor
Where a defendant admits to cancellation of title but the land is no longer registered in that defendant's name, having been transferred to third parties, it would be inappropriate to enter judgment on admission against that defendant as they cannot admit to cancellation of a title they no longer hold.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (9)

  • Messers Equator Touring Service Ltd v City Council of Kampala (Miscellaneous Application No. 406 of 2013)
  • Central Electrical International Ltd v Eastern Builder & Engineers (Miscellaneous Application No. 176 of 2008)
  • Excel Constructions Ltd v Attorney General (High Court Civil Suit No. 3007)
  • John Peter Nazareth Vs Barclays Bank International Ltd E.A.C.A 39 of 1976 (UR)
  • Ecobank Uganda Limited v Kalson's Agrovert Concern Ltd & Another (High Court Civil Suit No. 573 of 2016)
  • Turkish Airlines Inc v KK Fresh Produce Exporters Ltd & Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 755 of 2023)
  • Peter Jogo Tabu v The Registered Trustees of the Church of the Province of Uganda (High Court Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2017)
  • Byaruhanga Africano v Uganda Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 061 of 2022)
  • The Board of Governors Nebbi Town S.S.S v Jaker Food Stores Limited (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 0062 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kiggundu and Others v Kibumbi and Another 2024 UGHC 1217 (30 September 2024)
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.