Wakilii

Nile Breweries Ltd v Bruno Ozunga t a Nebbi Boss Stores (High Court Civil Suit No. 580 of 2006)

High Court · [2007] UGCOMMC 105 · 2007 Application Dismissed; Amendment Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to strike out Written Statement of Defence and Counter-claim at scheduling conference stage
Decision
Application dismissed; defendant granted leave to amend pleadings within 7 days

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 failure to plead particulars of misrepresentation contravenes Order 6 rule 3 but may be cured by amendment rather than striking out. Order 8 rule 8 requires a title for a counter-claim only when the defendant claims against the plaintiff together with another person. Where the counter-claim is against the plaintiff alone, no separate title is mandatory. Court allowed defendant to amend pleadings to address defects. Application to strike out dismissed.

Outcome

Application dismissed; defendant granted leave to amend pleadings within 7 days

Facts

The plaintiff Nile Breweries Ltd filed a civil suit against the defendant Bruno Ozunga trading as Nebbi Boss Stores. At the scheduling conference, plaintiff's counsel raised two preliminary objections. First, that the Written Statement of Defence contravened Order 6 rule 3 by stating the plaintiff's claim for Ushs 205,258,424 was a misrepresentation but failing to plead particulars of the misrepresentation. Second, that the Counter-claim offended Order 8 rule 8 by lacking a title setting out parties to the counter-claim. Plaintiff moved to strike out both pleadings. Defendant's counsel argued the defects should not warrant striking out and sought leave to amend.

Issues

  1. Whether the Written Statement of Defence contravened Order 6 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules by failing to plead particulars of misrepresentation.
  2. Whether the Counter-claim offended Order 8 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules by lacking a title.
  3. Whether defects in pleadings should result in striking out or be cured by amendment.

Orders

  • Application to strike out Written Statement of Defence and Counter-claim rejected.
  • Defendant granted leave to amend Written Statement of Defence to disclose particulars of misrepresentation.
  • Defendant to amend Written Statement of Defence and Counter-claim to include title to counter-claim.
  • Amended Written Statement of Defence and Counter-claim to be filed within 7 days from date of ruling.
  • Costs to be in the cause of the main suit.

Rules and key headnotes

Pleadings — Particulars of Misrepresentation — Order 6 rule 3
Where a party relies on misrepresentation in pleadings, Order 6 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules mandates that particulars with dates be stated, showing the nature and extent of the misrepresentation including when, where, by whom, to whom, and how it was made.
Pleadings — Defective Pleadings — Amendment Rather Than Striking Out
Where pleadings disclose a cause of action but are deficient in particulars, the proper remedy is amendment rather than striking out, so that the case may be decided on its merits and a party is not kept from justice on a technicality.
Counter-claim — Title Requirement — Order 8 rule 8
The requirement under Order 8 rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules to add a title to a counter-claim is mandatory only where the defendant claims against the plaintiff together with another person; where the counter-claim is against the plaintiff alone, no separate title is required.
Amendment of Pleadings — Order 6 rule 19
Under Order 6 rule 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court has power at any stage of proceedings to allow a party to amend pleadings in such manner as may be just and necessary for determining the real questions in controversy, and such application may be made orally.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (6)

  • Newport (Monmouth) Slipway Dry Doch and Engineering Co Ltd v Paynter (1886) 34 Ch D 88
  • Tororo Cement Co Ltd v Frokina International Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2001)
  • Auto Garage & Another v Motokov (No. 3) (1971) EA 514
  • Sekiranda Musoke Yakobo v China Jie Fang (U) Ltd (High Court Civil Suit No. 33 of 1996)
  • Nampera Trading Co v Yusufu Ssemanye & Another (1973) ULR 171
  • Seligman v Young (1884) W.N. 93

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nile Breweries Ltd v Bruno Ozunga t a Nebbi Boss Stores (High Court Civil Suit No. 580 of 2006) [2007] UGCommC 105 (13 December 2007)
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.