Wakilii

MS CheapSuper Quality and Fancy Stores Limited v Uganda Commercial Bank [1995] UGHC 161

High Court · 1995 Plaint Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Preliminary objection to civil suit on grounds of failure to serve statutory notice
Decision
Plaint struck out with liberty to plaintiff to reinstitute suit if proper procedure followed and not time-barred

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 plaint was rejected and struck out because the plaintiff failed to serve the mandatory 60-day statutory notice of intention to sue on the defendant, a scheduled corporation, under section 1(1) of the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1969. The court held that compliance with this requirement is mandatory and failure is fatal to proceedings. The plaintiff's claim of surprise was rejected because the defendant had denied service in the written statement of defence, making it a contested issue.

Outcome

Plaint struck out with liberty to plaintiff to reinstitute suit if proper procedure followed and not time-barred

Facts

The plaintiff, M/S Cheap-Super Quality & Fancy Stores Limited, brought a civil suit against the defendant, Uganda Commercial Bank, a scheduled corporation. The defendant raised a preliminary objection that no statutory notice of intention to sue had been served as required under section 1(1) of the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1969. The plaintiff's counsel conceded that no statutory notice had been served but argued he was taken by surprise because the defendant had not pleaded non-compliance in the written statement of defence. However, the plaintiff had pleaded in paragraph 25 of the plaint that intention to sue had been communicated, and the defendant had denied this in paragraph 3 of the written statement of defence, making it a contested issue.

Issues

  1. Whether the suit should be dismissed for failure to serve statutory notice of intention to sue under section 1(1) of the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1969.
  2. Whether the defendant's denial of service in the written statement of defence was sufficient to put the plaintiff on notice of the objection.

Orders

  • Plaint rejected and struck out.
  • Costs awarded to the defendant.
  • Plaintiff at liberty to resurrect suit by following proper procedure if not time-barred.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Statutory Notice — Scheduled Corporations — Mandatory Requirement
No suit shall be instituted against a scheduled corporation before expiration of 60 days after written notice of intention to sue has been served on the corporation, as provided under section 1(1) of the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1969. This requirement is mandatory and failure to comply is fatal to proceedings.
Civil Procedure — Burden of Proof — Statutory Notice — Defence Pleading
Once a defendant puts in issue the operation of section 1(1) of the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1969, the onus shifts to the plaintiff to prove that the necessary statutory notice was served upon the defendant corporation.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Denial as Sufficient Notice of Objection
Where a plaintiff pleads that notice of intention to sue was given and the defendant denies this allegation in the written statement of defence, the defendant has sufficiently raised the issue for trial. A plaintiff cannot claim surprise when the defendant subsequently relies on non-service of statutory notice at trial.
Civil Procedure — Striking Out Plaint — Non-Compliance with Mandatory Statutory Requirement
A suit brought in contravention of section 1(1) of the Civil Procedure and Limitation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1969 is barred by law within the meaning of Order 7 rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Rules, and the plaint shall be rejected and struck out with costs.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (2)

  • National Insurance Corporation v Kafero (1974) EA 477
  • Kampala City Council v Nuluyati (1974) EA 400

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

MS CheapSuper Quality and Fancy Stores Limited v Uganda Commercial Bank 1995 UGHC 161 (18 March 1995)
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.