Wakilii

MHK Engineering Services (U) Ltd v Mgcdowell Ltd (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 825 of 2018)

High Court · [2020] UGCOMMC 30 · 2020 Application Granted — Defence Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out written statement of defence from civil suit for breach of contract and to enter judgment on liquidated claim
Decision
Defence struck out, judgment entered for plaintiff for liquidated sum with interest and costs

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 Written Statement of Defence consisting of general and evasive denials without specific responses to allegations offends Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 Rules 8 and 10, warranting striking out under Rule 30. An affidavit sworn on behalf of a company by an accountant/administrator without a board resolution or letter of authority is incompetent where the deponent is not a principal officer with substantial executive or managerial powers. The defence was struck out and judgment entered for the liquidated sum with commercial interest from the date of default.

Outcome

Defence struck out, judgment entered for plaintiff for liquidated sum with interest and costs

Facts

MHK Engineering Services sued Macdowell Ltd for UGX 85,206,250/= being the unpaid price for spare parts supplied for caterpillar machines. The plaintiff issued invoices and a demand notice on 4th July 2018 which the defendant ignored. The defendant filed a Written Statement of Defence asserting that substantial payments had been made and the amount claimed was disputed, but provided no particulars of payment, dates, amounts paid, or supporting evidence. The defendant's affidavit in reply was sworn by an accountant/administrator without a board resolution or letter of authority. The plaintiff applied to strike out the defence for offending pleading rules.

Issues

  1. Whether the Written Statement of Defence filed by the Defendant/Respondent offends Order 6 Rules 8, 10 and 30 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether the affidavit in reply sworn by the Respondent's accountant/administrator was competent in the absence of special authorization from the company.
  3. Whether the defence should be struck out and judgment entered on the liquidated claim.

Orders

  • The Written Statement of Defence filed by the Defendant in Civil Suit No. 723 of 2018 is struck out for offending the provisions of Order 6 Rules 8 and 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  • Judgment entered in the main suit for the Plaintiff against the Defendant for the liquidated sum of UGX 85,206,250/=.
  • Interest at a commercial rate of 24% per annum from 4th July 2018 till full payment.
  • Costs of the suit and of the application awarded to the Plaintiff.
  • The affidavit in reply sworn by Ms Atim Winnie is struck out.

Rules and key headnotes

Pleadings — Denial — Specificity Requirement — Order 6 Rule 8
It is not sufficient for a defendant in a written statement of defence to deny generally the grounds alleged by the statement of claim; the defendant must deal specifically with each allegation of fact which he or she does not admit except damages, and must make clear how much of the opponent's case is disputed.
Pleadings — Evasive Denial — Particularity — Order 6 Rule 10
When a party denies an allegation of fact, he must not do so evasively but must answer the point of substance. If it is alleged that goods were received, it is not sufficient to say substantial payment was made without stating the dates of payment, the amounts paid, by which means, any outstanding balance, or any sum disputed.
Striking Out Pleadings — Order 6 Rule 30 — Defective Defence
The court may use its inherent powers under Order 6 Rule 30(1) to strike out a defective written statement of defence where the defect is apparent on the face of the record and where no amount of amendment will cure the defect, particularly where the defence consists of general and evasive denials.
Affidavits — Capacity to Swear — Corporate Deponents — Order 29 Rule 1
For a person to represent a company in person over a court matter including swearing affidavits, that person must be a director, secretary, or other principal officer of the company. A principal officer must be a primary or high-ranking officer with substantial executive or managerial powers including authority to sign contracts and make major business and administrative decisions.
Affidavits — Capacity — Accountant/Administrator — Authorisation Required
An accountant/administrator of a company, by designation, has no substantial executive or managerial powers and does not fall in the category of employees endowed with ostensible authority to act for and bind a company. Such a person cannot swear an affidavit on behalf of a company without special authorization through a board resolution or letter of authority clearly attached to the affidavit.
Affidavits — Incompetent Affidavit — Fatal Defect
An affidavit sworn by a person without the requisite capacity is incompetent and fatally defective. It cannot be cured by any stretch of the application of the principles of substantive justice and must be struck out.
Breach of Contract — Liquidated Claims — Judgment on Pleadings
Where a defence to a liquidated claim for goods supplied consists of bare denials without particulars or supporting evidence, and offends the mandatory pleading requirements under Order 6 Rules 8 and 10, the court may strike out the defence and enter judgment for the liquidated sum with commercial interest from the date of default.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (9)

  • Eco Bank Uganda Limited v Kalsons Agrovet Concerns Ltd & 2 Others (Civil Suit No. 573 of 2016)
  • Nile Bank Ltd & Another v Thomas Kato & Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 1190 of 1999)
  • Tropical African Bank Limited v Grace Were Muhwana (Civil Application No. 03 of 2012)
  • Ojara Otto Julius v Olwera Benson (Miscellaneous Application No. 0023 of 2017)
  • National Enterprises v Mukisa Foods (Civil Appeal No. 42 of 1997)
  • Security Group (U) Ltd & Another v Ellis R. Kasolo (Commercial Court Civil Appeal No. 07 of 2020)
  • Spencon Services Ltd v Onencan Habib (High Court Civil Appeal No. 092 of 2016)
  • Friecca Pharmacy Ltd v Anthony Natif (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 498 of 2019)
  • Kayondo v Attorney General [1988-1990] HCB 127

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

MHK Engineering Services (U) Ltd v Mgcdowell Ltd (Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 825 of 2018) [2020] UGCommC 30 (18 September 2020)
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.