Wakilii

Maraj Barot v Salvation Army (Civil Suit No. 713 of 2015)

High Court · [2018] UGCOMMC 35 · 2018 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judgment on admission under Order 13 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules in a first instance commercial suit
Decision
Application dismissed; matter to proceed to full hearing

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

Application for judgment on admission dismissed. For judgment to be entered on admission under Order 13 rule 6 CPR, the admission must be explicit and not open to doubt. The defendant explicitly denied the plaintiff's claim in its amended defence and raised a counterclaim for balance owed, therefore no admission was made warranting judgment on admission. The defendant's right to be heard on the counterclaim must be preserved.

Outcome

Application dismissed; matter to proceed to full hearing

Facts

The plaintiff instituted a suit against the defendant seeking a refund of UGX 435,100,000 being money had and received by the defendant to the plaintiff's detriment in a failed land transaction. When the matter came up for hearing, plaintiff's counsel raised a preliminary point of law under Order 13 rule 6 CPR seeking judgment on admission, contending that the defendant in its amended written statement of defence did not deny incriminating attachments or their content and that these compromising documents must be treated as admissions under Order 8 rule 3 CPR. The defendant opposed this proposition, submitting that nowhere in the pleadings did the defendant admit the plaintiff's claim. The defendant had filed an amended defence explicitly denying the claim and raised a counterclaim seeking UGX 164,400,000 as balance allegedly owed by the plaintiff.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant made admissions of facts on the pleadings or otherwise sufficient to warrant judgment on admission under Order 13 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to judgment without waiting for determination of other questions between the parties.

Orders

  • Application for judgment on admission dismissed.
  • Suit to be set down for hearing.
  • Costs in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Judgment on Admission — Requirements under Order 13 rule 6 CPR
Under Order 13 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, any party may at any stage of a suit where an admission of facts has been made, either on the pleadings or otherwise, apply to the court for such judgment or order as upon the admission they may be entitled to, without waiting for determination of any other question between the parties.
Civil Procedure — Judgment on Admission — Standard of Admission Required
For judgment to be entered on admission, such admission must be explicit and not open to doubt; once an admission of facts is made, the court may upon application make such order or give such judgment.
Civil Procedure — Judgment on Admission — Defendant's Right to Be Heard on Counterclaim
Where a defendant has raised a counterclaim, granting judgment on admission against the defendant would deny the defendant the right to be heard on the counterclaim, and therefore judgment on admission should not be granted in such circumstances.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Civil Procedure Rules O.13 r.6
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.8 r.3

Cases cited (6)

  • Equator Touring Services Ltd v Kampala City Council (Miscellaneous Application No. 406 of 2013)
  • Central Electrical International Ltd v Eastern Builders and Engineers (Miscellaneous Application No. 176 of 2008)
  • Excel Construction Ltd Vs AG. HCCS No. 3007
  • John Peter Nazareth Vs Barclays Bank International Ltd., E.A.C.A. 39 of 1976 (UR)
  • African Insurance Co. Vs Uganda Airlines [1985] HCB 53
  • Mohamed B.M. Dhanji Vs Lulu & Co. [1960] E.A. 541

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Maraj Barot v Salvation Army (Civil Suit No. 713 of 2015) [2018] UGCommC 35 (4 September 2018)
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.