Wakilii

M/S Dembe Enterprises Ltd v M/S Transami (U) Ltd and Another (Civil Suit 375 of 1992)

High Court · [1992] UGHC 93 · 1992 Preliminary Objection Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on preliminary objections in a first instance civil suit
Decision
Matter to proceed to trial on the merits

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 a letter marked 'Without Prejudice' attached to the plaint is privileged and must be struck off as such negotiations are conducted with a view to settlement and should not be disclosed absent the author's consent. However, the plaint discloses a cause of action even after removal of the privileged document. Order 1 rule 7 allows a plaintiff in doubt to join multiple defendants so the court can determine liability as between all parties. The first preliminary objection was upheld; the second was overruled.

Outcome

Matter to proceed to trial on the merits

Facts

The plaintiff, M/S Dembe Enterprises Ltd, instituted a civil suit against two defendants, M/S Transami (U) Ltd and M/S Transami (K) Ltd. The plaint included as Annexture 'A' a letter written by defendants' counsel to plaintiff's counsel headed 'Without Prejudice', containing settlement proposals. Before hearing on the merits, defendants' counsel raised two preliminary objections: first, that the 'Without Prejudice' letter should be struck off; second, that the plaint failed to disclose a cause of action because it did not clearly identify which defendant was properly sued, when and where the cause of action arose, and that attached documents did not support the claimed sum.

Issues

  1. Whether a letter headed 'Without Prejudice' annexed to the plaint should be struck off from the plaint and court record.
  2. Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action against the defendants.

Orders

  • Annexture 'A' to the plaint be removed from the plaint and the court record.
  • The first preliminary objection is upheld.
  • The second preliminary objection is overruled.
  • The suit will proceed to trial.
  • Costs will be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Without Prejudice Negotiations — Privilege from Disclosure
Negotiations conducted 'without prejudice' with a view to settlement are privileged from disclosure in subsequent litigation, and the court has discretion to decide whether a document amounts to privileged settlement negotiation, but once that character is established the document must be excluded to encourage parties to settle disputes honestly without fear that statements will be used against them at trial.
Civil Procedure — Joinder of Parties — Order 1 Rule 7
Under Order 1 rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a plaintiff who is in doubt as to which of two or more persons is liable may join them as defendants so that the question of liability and extent may be determined as between all parties, and the plaintiff is the best person to decide whether such doubt exists; the court cannot determine the proper party to be sued at the preliminary stage before evidence is adduced.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Disclosure of Cause of Action — Preliminary Objections
A plaint discloses a cause of action if it sets out sufficient material facts to establish a claim; matters that go to proof or the strength of evidence are not to be determined at the stage of a preliminary objection but should be resolved at trial by adducing evidence.

Legislation cited (1)

  • Civil Procedure Rules Or. 1 r. 7

Cases cited (2)

  • Ruth Nsubuga & 2 Others v Peter D Nsubuga & 3 Others (HCCS No. 1081)
  • Field vs. Commissioner for Railways for New South Wales /1957 ~ 53/ Vol. 99. P. 285

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

M_S Dembe Enterprises Ltd v M_S Transami (U) Ltd and Another (Civil Suit 375 of 1992) [1992] UGHC 93 (14 November 1992)
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.