Wakilii

Noble Builders (Co) Limited v M/s Sietco (Miscellaneous Application 154 of 1993)

High Court · [1993] UGHC 33 · 1993 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Miscellaneous application to strike out counter claim on grounds it discloses no cause of action
Decision
Counter claim struck out with costs for failure to comply with mandatory pleading requirements

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 held that where a counter claim alleges fraud through the use of unspecified 'tricks and strategies' to extract money, but fails to provide the necessary particulars of fraud as required by Order 6 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the counter claim discloses no cause of action and must be struck out. Order 6 rule 2 is mandatory and failure to plead particulars of fraud is a fundamental defect that cannot be cured.

Outcome

Counter claim struck out with costs for failure to comply with mandatory pleading requirements

Facts

Noble Builders (Co) Limited (plaintiff) filed Civil Suit No. 17/90 against M/s Sietco (defendant). The defendant filed a counter claim alleging that the plaintiff failed to complete construction work on a UNDP office block and housing estate, and that the plaintiff 'using tricks and other strategies' extracted US$ 1,300,000 from the defendant. The counter claim also alleged that the plaintiff 'deliberately and fraudulently represented' that it had the ability, capacity, skill and expertise to carry out the work when it did not. The plaintiff brought a miscellaneous application to strike out the counter claim on grounds that it did not disclose a cause of action because the allegations of fraud were not accompanied by the necessary particulars as required by Order 6 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The defendant opposed the application, arguing that sufficient particulars were provided when the pleadings were read together.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant's counter claim discloses a cause of action where it alleges fraud but does not provide the particulars of fraud as required by the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. Whether allegations of 'tricks and strategies' used to extract money constitute allegations of fraud requiring particularisation under Order 6 rule 2.
  3. Whether a counter claim alleging fraud without sufficient particulars should be struck out under Order 6 rule 29 and Order 48 rule 1.

Orders

  • The Counter Claim insofar as it relates to the claim for US$ 1,300,000 is struck out.
  • Costs awarded to the plaintiff/applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Fraud — Requirement to Plead Particulars
Order 6 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules makes it mandatory for a party relying on fraud, misrepresentation, breach of trust, wilful default or undue influence to state the particulars with dates in the pleadings. The party alleging fraud must provide details of the facts that amount to fraud, the dates on which such acts were committed, and sums of money realised by each such act or series of acts.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Fraud — Insufficiency of General Allegations
General allegations of fraud, however strong the words in which they are stated, are insufficient to amount to an averment of fraud of which any court ought to take notice. Vague allegations such as the use of unspecified 'tricks and strategies' to extract money without particulars of what those tricks and strategies consist of do not satisfy the mandatory requirement to plead particulars of fraud.
Civil Procedure — Striking Out Pleadings — Failure to Comply with Mandatory Pleading Requirement
Failure to plead and particularise fraud is a fundamental defect and not an irregularity curable by evidence or otherwise. Where a counter claim alleges fraud but does not comply with the mandatory requirement in Order 6 rule 2 to provide particulars of fraud, the counter claim may be struck out for failing to disclose a cause of action or for failing to comply with the mandatory rule.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Entitlement on Success in Interlocutory Application
Where a party succeeds on an interlocutory application, such as a preliminary objection to strike out pleadings, that success constitutes an 'event' under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act and the successful party is entitled to costs unless the court for good reason orders otherwise.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (9)

  • Steven Luboga v Barclays Bank of Uganda Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1992)
  • In RE RICA Gold Washing Company 1879 11 ch.D 36
  • John Wallingford v The Directors of The Mutual Society (1879-80) 5 App Cas 683
  • Newport Drydock & Engineering Company vs Panter (1886) 34 ch. D. 88
  • Dow Hager Lawrance v Lord Norreys (1890) 15 AC 210
  • Misango vs Musigire 1968 E.A. 590
  • Libyan Arab Bank vs Intrepo Ltd. 1985 HCB 73
  • Okello v Uganda National Examination Board (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1987)
  • Shankerdass Moyer and Others versus Trustees of The Rahimtulla LALJI HIRJI Charitable Trust 1955 E.A.C.A 18

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Noble Builders (Co) Limited v M_s Sietco (Miscellaneous Application 154 of 1993) [1993] UGHC 33 (5 November 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.