Wakilii

Noble Builders (Co) Ltd. v M/S Sietco (Civil Suit 17 of 1990)

High Court · [1993] UGHC 103 · 1993 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Miscellaneous application to strike out defendant's counterclaim for failure to plead particulars of fraud
Decision
Defendant's counterclaim for US$ 1,300,000 struck out for failure to plead particulars of fraud

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 High Court held that a counterclaim alleging fraud must comply with the mandatory requirement in Order 6 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules to plead particulars of the fraud, including the facts constituting fraud, dates of the fraudulent acts, and the loss attributed to each act. Vague allegations of 'tricks and strategies' without specific particulars are insufficient and the counterclaim must be struck out for failure to disclose a cause of action.

Outcome

Defendant's counterclaim for US$ 1,300,000 struck out for failure to plead particulars of fraud

Facts

The plaintiff Noble Builders (Co) Ltd brought suit in 1990. The defendant M/S Sietco filed a counterclaim alleging that the plaintiff had failed to complete construction work on a UNDP office block and housing estate by the agreed dates in 1988, had fraudulently represented its capacity to do the work, and had used 'tricks and other strategies' to extract US$ 1,300,000 from the defendant. The plaintiff applied to strike out the counterclaim on grounds that it did not disclose a cause of action because it contained allegations of fraud without pleading the necessary particulars as required by Order 6 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Issues

  1. Whether the defendant's counterclaim discloses a cause of action where it alleges fraud without pleading the requisite particulars.
  2. Whether allegations that the plaintiff used 'tricks and strategies' to extract money constitute allegations of fraud requiring particulars under Order 6 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

  • The counterclaim insofar as it relates to the claim for US$ 1,300,000 is struck out with costs.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Particulars of Fraud — Requirement to State Facts, Dates and Loss
Where a party pleads fraud, misrepresentation, breach of trust, wilful default or undue influence, Order 6 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules makes it mandatory to state particulars with dates in the pleadings. The party must provide details of the facts that amount to fraud, the dates on which such acts were committed, and the sums of money or loss realised by each such act or series of acts.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Vague Allegations of Fraud — Insufficiency
General or vague 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. A party cannot merely state 'you have defrauded me' or allege the use of unspecified 'tricks and strategies' — they must state the facts which constitute the fraud so that the other party may know what case they are to meet.
Civil Procedure — Striking Out Pleadings — Failure to Plead Particulars of Fraud — Mandatory Requirement
Failure to plead and particularise fraud is a fundamental defect and not an irregularity curable by evidence or otherwise. Where a pleading alleges fraud without complying with the mandatory requirement to plead particulars under Order 6 rule 2, the pleading does not disclose a cause of action and must be struck out.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Successful Party on Interlocutory Application — Event
Where a party succeeds on a preliminary objection or interlocutory application, there is an 'event' for purposes of costs — namely the court's decision which effectively and conclusively determines the question before it. Absent good reason to the contrary, costs follow the event and should be awarded to the successful party.

Legislation cited (6)

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
  • Wallingford v Mutual Society (1880) 5 App Cas 697
  • Newport Drydock & Engineering Company v Panter (1886) 34 Ch D 88
  • Dow Hager Lawrence v Lord Norreys (1890) 15 AC 210
  • Misango vs Musigire 1986 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) Ltd. v M_S Sietco (Civil Suit 17 of 1990) [1993] UGHC 103 (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.