Wakilii

Nangunga Livestock Co-operative Society Ltd v M/s Energo Project Corporation (Civil Suit No.207 of 1993)

High Court · [1993] UGHC 12 · 1993 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory ruling on preliminary objection to admissibility of evidence in civil suit for breach of contract
Decision
Preliminary objection dismissed with costs; matter to proceed to trial 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

Held that a document need not be annexed to the plaint under Order 7 Rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules unless the plaintiff is suing upon that document or relying on it in support of the claim as stated in the pleadings. Where the plaintiff's claim rests on delivery notes that were properly annexed and the disputed document is merely corroborative evidence, there is no legal obligation to produce it at the time of filing. The original letter was admissible as primary evidence under sections 61 and 62 of the Evidence Act. Preliminary objection overruled.

Outcome

Preliminary objection dismissed with costs; matter to proceed to trial on merits

Facts

The plaintiff, a cooperative society, sued the defendant, a Yugoslav construction company, for payment of 7,000,000 Ugandan shillings being the value of beans and maize supplied at the defendant's request. The plaintiff annexed delivery notes to the plaint as evidence of supply. During trial, the plaintiff's witness testified and attempted to tender a letter from the defendant accepting the tender to supply the produce. Defence counsel objected under Order 7 Rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules, arguing that the letter ought to have been annexed to the plaint or listed at the time of filing and that its late production suggested manufactured evidence. Defence counsel also raised concerns about apparent discrepancies between photostat copies previously supplied and the original document tendered, suggesting different typewriters had been used.

Issues

  1. Whether a letter from the defendant accepting tender to supply goods was admissible in evidence where it was not annexed to the plaint or listed as a document to be relied upon under Order 7 Rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection overruled.
  • Costs of the preliminary objection awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Documents to be Annexed to Plaint — Order 7 Rule 18
Order 7 Rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules requires a plaintiff to produce or list only those documents upon which the suit is based or which are relied upon in support of the claim as stated in the pleadings, not every document that may be tendered as corroborative evidence during trial.
Civil Procedure — Documents Founding the Suit — Order 7 Rule 14
Where a plaintiff sues upon delivery notes showing supply of goods and annexes those notes to the plaint, there is no requirement to also annex a separate acceptance letter from the defendant unless the plaintiff is specifically suing upon or relying on that letter as the foundation of the claim in the pleadings.
Evidence — Primary Evidence — Admissibility of Original Documents
Under sections 61 and 62 of the Evidence Act, primary evidence is the document itself produced for inspection by the court and is admissible where the document is an original and the party seeks to prove its contents.
Evidence — Expert Opinion — Typewriter Analysis
Questions concerning which typewriter was used to produce a document or whether photostat copies originate from the same source are matters requiring expert evidence and cannot be determined by counsel or the court without such expertise.

Legislation cited (7)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nangunga Livestock Co-operative Society Ltd v M_s Energo Project Corporation (Civil Suit No.207 of 1993) [1993] UGHC 12 (23 August 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.