Wakilii

North Bukedi Co-operative Union Linited v North Bukedi Cotton Company Limited (Civil Appeal 24 of 2010; Civil Suit No. 0002 of 2010)

High Court · [2010] UGHC 262 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by notice of motion to strike out written statement of defence arising from civil suit
Decision
Written statement of defence struck out; interlocutory judgment entered for plaintiff with matter set down for formal proof

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 written statement of defence that fails to comply with Order 6 rule 2 CPR by not being accompanied by a brief summary of evidence, list of witnesses, documents, and authorities must be struck out, as this requirement is mandatory. Where the defence also contains demonstrably false assertions and discloses no reasonable answer to the plaint, it is vexatious and may be struck out under Order 6 rule 30 CPR. However, where the plaintiff's annextures are uncertified photocopies and claims require proof, interlocutory judgment rather than final judgment is appropriate.

Outcome

Written statement of defence struck out; interlocutory judgment entered for plaintiff with matter set down for formal proof

Facts

The applicant brought an application by notice of motion to strike out the respondent's written statement of defence under Order 6 rules 2 and 30 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The respondent's counsel was served but filed no affidavit in reply and had no representative at the hearing. The hearing proceeded ex parte. The written statement of defence was not accompanied by the required summary of evidence, list of witnesses, list of documents, or list of authorities as mandated by Order 6 rule 2 CPR. The defence also contained false assertions, including claims that fees had not been paid and that the applicant's counsel had no valid practicing certificate, both of which were disproved by documentary evidence. The plaint itself was supported only by uncertified photocopies.

Issues

  1. Whether the written statement of defence should be struck out for failure to comply with Order 6 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules
  2. Whether the written statement of defence discloses no reasonable answer to the plaint
  3. Whether the defence is frivolous or vexatious
  4. Whether judgment should be entered for the plaintiff or the matter set down for formal proof

Orders

  • Written statement of defence struck out for disclosing no reasonable answer to the plaint.
  • Interlocutory judgment entered for the plaintiff.
  • Suit set down for formal proof.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the applicant to be taxed.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Requirement to Accompany Defence with Summary of Evidence, Lists of Witnesses, Documents and Authorities
Order 6 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules mandatorily requires every pleading to be accompanied by a brief summary of the evidence to be adduced, a list of witnesses, a list of documents, and a list of authorities to be relied on. Failure to comply with this provision is fatal to the pleading. The provision was introduced to eliminate the element of surprise in litigation and to enable the court and parties to explore alternative avenues of resolving disputes.
Civil Procedure — Striking Out Pleadings — Grounds for Striking Out Written Statement of Defence
Under Order 6 rule 30 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court may strike out a pleading on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action or answer, or where the defence is shown to be frivolous or vexatious. A written statement of defence that contains demonstrably false assertions and fails to comply with mandatory procedural requirements may be struck out as disclosing no reasonable answer and being vexatious.
Civil Procedure — Judgment — Interlocutory versus Final Judgment Where Proof Required
Where a written statement of defence is struck out but the plaintiff's supporting documents consist only of uncertified photocopies and the figures claimed cannot be unequivocally certified or proved, and where the plaintiff also claims general damages in addition to pecuniary claims, it is just to enter interlocutory judgment for the plaintiff and set the suit down for formal proof rather than entering final judgment.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.2
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.30

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

North Bukedi Co-operative Union Linited v North Bukedi Cotton Company Limited (Civil Appeal 24 of 2010; Civil Suit No. 0002 of 2010) [2010] UGHC 262 (
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.