Wakilii

Nanjubu v Kintu & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 77 of 2011)

High Court · [2011] UGCOMMC 198 · 2011 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out defence in civil suit arising from alleged failure to refund purchase price under contract for sale of land
Decision
Application dismissed; matter remitted for full hearing on the merits

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (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 1 time 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

The court declined to strike out the defendants' defence despite finding that it did not set up plausible defences to the claim under clause 9 of the relevant agreements. The court exercised its discretion under Order 6 rule 30 to allow the matter to proceed to trial, noting that the defendants had made considerable effort to be heard after an ex parte decree was set aside, and striking out the defence would amount to restoring that decree before they had been heard on the merits.

Outcome

Application dismissed; matter remitted for full hearing on the merits

Facts

The plaintiff Joseph Nanjubu sued defendants Frank Kintu and Musa Nsimbe for refund of purchase price of land under two agreements dated 6 and 12 August 2008. The agreements provided that if the defendants failed to pass title and give vacant possession within 30 days, they would refund the full purchase price plus 10% per month interest. The plaintiff claimed the defendants failed to deliver the land free from encumbrances and third party claims within 30 days, and refused to refund the purchase price when demanded on 18 September 2008. A summary suit resulted in an ex parte decree in December 2008. After the defendants were arrested and imprisoned, they successfully applied to set aside the ex parte decree and were given leave to file a defence. The plaintiff then brought this application to strike out the defence.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendants' written statement of defence discloses a reasonable answer to the plaintiff's claim for a refund of the purchase price and interest under the contract for sale of land.

Orders

  • Application to strike out the written statement of defence dismissed.
  • Decision on whether the written statement of defence should be struck out stayed until after evidence has been adduced.
  • Matter to be fixed for hearing on the nearest date convenient to court and heard from day to day until completed.
  • Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the main suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Striking Out Pleadings — Standard under Order 6 Rule 30
Under Order 6 rule 30 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court has discretionary power to strike out pleadings that disclose no reasonable answer to the claim, and must determine this question by looking at the pleadings alone, together with anything attached to form part of them, assuming the facts pleaded are true.
Striking Out — Exercise of Discretion
The power to strike out pleadings under Order 6 rule 30 is discretionary, and the court may decline to strike out even where the defence does not set up plausible defences, particularly where defendants have made considerable efforts to be heard after an ex parte decree was set aside and striking out would effectively restore that decree before they had been heard on the merits.
Approbate and Reprobate — Effect of Admission of Contract
A party cannot both accept the benefits of a contract and reject the liabilities imposed by the same contract; the doctrine of approbate and reprobate estops a person from accepting and rejecting the same instrument at the same time.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (17)

  • Lissenden v C.A.V. Bosch (1940) A.C. 412
  • Ben Byabashaijja & Another v Attorney General (1992) 1 KALR 161
  • Joshi v Uganda Sugar Factory (1968) EA 570
  • Montgomery and others v United Kingdom Mutual Steamship Association Ltd (1891) 1 QB 370
  • Auto Garage v Motokov [1971] EA 514
  • Hubbuck and Sons Ltd v Wilkinson Heywood and Clerk Ltd (1899) 1 Q.B. 89
  • Transvaal Investment Company v Atkinson [1944] 1 ALL ER 579
  • Sinclair v Brougham [1914] A.C. 398
  • Mapro Ltd v AG [1996] KALR 557
  • Zimwe Enterprises Hardwares v John Sentongo [1990] KALR 776
  • All Ports Freight Services (U) Ltd v Julius Kamwanyi and Another [1996] KALR 489
  • Kampala District Land Board and Another v National Housing and Construction Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2004)
  • Libyan Arab Bank v Intrepo Ltd [1985] HCB
  • Jeraj Shariff & Co v Chotai Fancy Stores [1960] 1 EA 374
  • S C Baxi v The Bank of India Limited [1966] 1 EA 130
  • Attorney-General of the Duchy of Lancaster v. London and North Western Railway Company
  • Logan v. Bank of Scotland

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

Nanjubu v Kintu & Anor (Miscellaneous Application No. 77 of 2011) [2011] UGCommC 198 (1 April 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.