Wakilii

Nakutubu v Sekitoleko (CIVIL SUIT NO. 4 OF 1992)

High Court · [1993] UGHCCD 13 · 1993 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on preliminary objection challenging the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (c) C.P.R. for disclosing no cause of action and being frivolous
Decision
Preliminary objection dismissed; matter to proceed to substantive hearing

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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

A preliminary objection to a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.R. should be dismissed where the plaint contains material facts from which partnership and contracts may be inferred, even if partnership registration particulars and documentary evidence such as a Partnership Deed are not exhibited. Such matters are triable issues for determination at the hearing of the substantive suit, not matters for disposal at a preliminary stage.

Outcome

Preliminary objection dismissed; matter to proceed to substantive hearing

Facts

The plaintiff sued the defendant seeking dissolution of an alleged partnership under the name Inter Motor Spares, an account of contracts allegedly carried out, and sharing of amounts due from such contracts according to their shares. The defendant raised a preliminary objection under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (c) C.P.R., contending that the plaint disclosed no cause of action and was frivolous. The defendant argued that the plaint failed to disclose the existence of a partnership, noting that registration documents showed Inter Motor Spares was registered solely in the defendant's name after one Wamala Rashid withdrew, and that various annextures (cheques, ledgers, contracts) were in the defendant's name only. The defendant further contended that the plaintiff had no locus standi to sue on documents in the defendant's name and that particulars of partnership registration required under section 5(1) of the Business Names Registration Act were absent from the plaint.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaint prima facie discloses the existence of a partnership between the parties.
  2. Whether the plaint discloses the existence of contracts from which relief is sought.
  3. Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action against the defendant.
  4. Whether the suit is frivolous and should be struck out.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection disallowed.
  • Costs awarded to the plaintiff in any event.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Order 7 Rule 11 — Test for Striking Out Plaint
A plaint should not be struck out at a preliminary stage under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.R. where it contains material facts from which the cause of action may be inferred, even if supporting documentary evidence or statutory particulars are not exhibited in the plaint.
Commercial Law — Partnership — Pleading Requirements — Partnership Deed
There is no requirement in law that a Partnership Deed must be exhibited or drawn by partners for a plaint alleging partnership to disclose a cause of action. The existence or non-existence of such a deed is a triable issue for determination at the hearing of the substantive suit.
Commercial Law — Partnership — Pleading Requirements — Registration Particulars
Particulars of partnership registration required under section 5(1) of the Business Names Registration Act are matters of evidence to be adduced at trial, not matters that must be pleaded in the plaint for the plaint to disclose a cause of action.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nakutubu v Sekitoleko (CIVIL SUIT NO. 4 OF 1992) [1993] UGHCCD 13 (14 June 1993)
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.