Wakilii

Nampera Trading Co v Ssemwanje & Anor (Civil Suit No.604 of 1971)

High Court · [1973] UGHC 1 · 1973 Preliminary Objection Upheld AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Preliminary objection hearing regarding compliance with court order to file amended written statement of defence
Decision
Plaintiff's preliminary objection upheld; defendants' defence struck out as incompetent

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 ruled that the amended written statement of defence was incompetent because parties introduced in the counter-claim had not been served in accordance with Order 8 Rules 9 and 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules and were not before the court. The defendants' failure to file a compliant amended defence within the 15-day period ordered meant there was no valid defence to the action.

Outcome

Plaintiff's preliminary objection upheld; defendants' defence struck out as incompetent

Facts

The plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 604 of 1971 against two defendants. The defendants filed an amended written statement of defence dated 11th December 1971 which included a counter-claim introducing five additional parties who were not parties to the original suit. On 28th November 1972, Phadke J observed that the amended defence was incompetent as it introduced parties not before the court and granted the defendants leave to file a further amended defence within 15 days. The defendants failed to comply with this order. The plaintiff then raised a preliminary objection that there was no defence to the action. The defendants argued that the defence remained valid except for the counter-claim portion.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendants' failure to file an amended written statement of defence within 15 days as ordered meant there was no defence to the action.
  2. Whether the amended written statement of defence dated 11th December 1971 was competent where it introduced parties by way of counter-claim who had not been served and were not before the court.

Orders

  • The amended written statement of defence dated 11th December 1971 is incompetent.
  • There is no defence to the action.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Counter-claims — Service Requirements for Additional Parties
Where a defendant by counter-claim introduces parties who are not parties to the original suit, those parties must be summoned to appear by being served with a copy of the defence in accordance with the rules for regulating service of summons under Order 8 Rules 9 and 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Amended Pleadings — Compliance with Court Orders
Where a court grants leave to file an amended pleading within a specified time and the party fails to comply with that order, the original incompetent pleading remains incompetent and provides no defence to the action.
Civil Procedure — Written Statement of Defence — Competence
A written statement of defence that purports to raise a counter-claim against parties who have not been properly served and are not before the court is incompetent and does not constitute a valid defence to the action.

Legislation cited (4)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nampera Trading Co v Ssemwanje & Anor (Civil Suit No.604 of 1971) [1973] UGHC 1 (28 February 1973)
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.