Wakilii

Kyenda v SBL International Holdings N. Ltd (Misc. Application No. 052 of 2013)

High Court · [2014] UGHCCD 44 · 2014 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application for delivery of interrogatories arising from civil suit
Decision
Applicant granted partial relief — some interrogatories allowed, others disallowed

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 an applicant seeking interrogatories must demonstrate they are necessary for disposing of the suit fairly or for saving costs. Interrogatories relating to matters that can only be determined after trial judgment (such as technical audits) are not necessary for disposal of the suit. Interrogatories 1-8 and 30-48 were granted as relevant; interrogatories 9-29 were disallowed as irrelevant, prolix or unnecessary.

Outcome

Applicant granted partial relief — some interrogatories allowed, others disallowed

Facts

The applicant claimed to be the authorized agent of Bugiri District Local Government to collect local revenues from a quarry operated by the respondent. The respondent filed a written statement of defence denying all averments in the plaint, including that the applicant was the recognised agent. The applicant sought delivery of 48 interrogatories to prevent being taken by surprise at trial. The respondent opposed, arguing the interrogatories were fishing interrogatories that would cause delay and increase costs, and that all issues could be disposed of at trial. The respondent also indicated an intention to issue a third party notice to Uganda National Roads Authority.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant is entitled to an order for delivery of interrogatories to the respondent.
  2. Which of the 48 interrogatories sought are necessary for fair disposal of the suit or for saving costs.
  3. Whether the interrogatories are vexatious, unreasonable, prolix, oppressive or unnecessary.

Orders

  • Application partly allowed.
  • Defendant to answer interrogatories 1-8 and 30-48 within the time limit prescribed by Order 10 CPR.
  • Interrogatories 9-29 disallowed.
  • Costs in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Interrogatories — Test for Grant — Necessity for Fair Disposal or Saving Costs
In deciding whether to grant an order for interrogatories, the court must be guided by whether the interrogatories are necessary for disposing of the suit fairly or for saving costs.
Interrogatories — Relevance — Matters Determinable Only After Trial
Interrogatories relating to matters that can only be determined or ordered after judgment at the end of trial (such as technical audits contingent on a favourable finding of liability) are not necessary for disposal of the suit and should not be allowed.
Interrogatories — Grounds for Disallowance — Vexatious, Prolix, Oppressive or Unnecessary
Under Order 10 rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court will not allow interrogatories that are vexatious, unreasonable, prolix, oppressive or unnecessary.
Interrogatories — Limited Liability Companies — Procurement of Answers from Officers and Agents
A limited liability company answering interrogatories must procure the making of proper answers from the company's officers, servants or agents. What matters is not what is known to an individual but what is known to the company.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (4)

  • National Social Security Fund Board of Trustee v Kario Farms Ltd & Others (2006) EA 240
  • Omar v Gordhanbhai & Another (1974) EA 518
  • Sebastian R. D'Souza & Others v Charles Clemente Ferrao (1959) EA 1000
  • Stanfield Properties Ltd v National Westminster Bank (1983) 2 All ER 249

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kyenda v SBL International Holdings N. Ltd (Misc. Application No. 052 of 2013) [2014] UGHCCD 44 (24 March 2014)
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.