Wakilii

Mugisha & Ors v G4 Security Services (U) Ltd (Civil Misc. Application No. 282 of 2010)

High Court · [2011] UGHC 26 · 2011 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out written statement of defence for alleged non-compliance with discovery order
Decision
Application to strike out defence dismissed; matter to proceed to hearing on 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

Court declined to strike out the respondent's written statement of defence. Though the applicants alleged non-compliance with a discovery order, the respondent had produced boxes of documents which were presented in Court on 24 March 2010 and inspected by parties on 15 April 2010. The failure to produce certain merger agreements was explained on the basis that the respondent was not party to them. Order 10 Rule 21 Civil Procedure Rules was not satisfied where substantial compliance occurred.

Outcome

Application to strike out defence dismissed; matter to proceed to hearing on merits

Facts

The applicants filed two High Court civil suits (HCCS No. 269 of 2007 and HCCS No. 113 of 2008) against the respondent, a security services company. The respondent filed defences claiming all entitlements had been discharged. The applicants obtained a Court order on 10 March 2010 requiring the respondent to discover and produce documents supporting their defence. The applicants then applied to strike out the defence, alleging non-compliance with the discovery order. The respondent's company secretary deposed that boxes of documents were produced in Court on 24 March 2010 and inspected by both parties and their counsel on 15 April 2010. The respondent admitted it could not produce merger agreements between its shareholders because it was not party to those agreements. The applicants' advocate had been present when the boxes were produced but nevertheless swore an affidavit denying compliance.

Issues

  1. Whether the respondent complied with the Court's order for discovery and production of documents.
  2. Whether the written statement of defence in HCCS No. 269 of 2007 and HCCS No. 113 of 2008 should be struck out for alleged non-compliance with the discovery order.

Orders

  • Chamber Summons dismissed.
  • Costs to abide the outcome of the main suit.
  • Deputy Registrar (Civil) directed to retrieve all documents lying at Land Division for inspection by parties and fix a date for hearing of the suit on its merits.

Rules and key headnotes

Discovery — Non-Compliance with Discovery Orders — Striking Out Defence
Under Order 10 Rule 21 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a defence may be struck out for failure to comply with a discovery order, but the Court will not exercise this drastic remedy where the respondent has substantially complied by producing boxes of documents for inspection, even if some specific documents could not be produced for legitimate reasons such as the party not being privy to certain agreements.
Discovery — Credibility of Affidavit Evidence — Counsel Present at Discovery
Where counsel for the applicant was present in Court when documents were produced pursuant to a discovery order but subsequently swears or causes an affidavit to be sworn denying such compliance, the Court will view such conduct as unfortunate and lacking in credibility, undermining the application to strike out the defence.

Legislation cited (1)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mugisha & Ors v G4 Security Services (U) Ltd (Civil Misc. Application No. 282 of 2010) [2011] UGHC 26 (10 March 2011)
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.