Wakilii

Ochwo v veterinaires Sans Frontieres Belgium (Labour Dispute 209 of 2014)

Industrial Court · [2017] UGIC 12 · 2017 Preliminary Objection Upheld AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on preliminary objection to special damages claims in labour dispute arising from wrongful dismissal
Decision
Special damages claims struck out for failure to particularize; partial consent order on other claims remains in effect

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 Industrial Court upheld a preliminary objection to the claimant's special damages claims totalling UGX 65,854,370. The court held that special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. The claimant failed to particularize the special damages in his pleadings as required by Order 6 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Evidence adduced in reply to the preliminary objection could not cure the defect in pleadings. The preliminary objection was allowed and the special damages claims struck out.

Outcome

Special damages claims struck out for failure to particularize; partial consent order on other claims remains in effect

Facts

The claimant brought a labour dispute against his former employer for unlawful termination, seeking wages, special damages of UGX 50,854,370, aggravated damages, and costs. The parties entered a partial consent order in favour of the claimant for salary arrears for August to October 2012, a certificate of service, one month's pay in lieu of notice (UGX 13,321,000), and costs of UGX 3,000,000. The issue of damages remained pending. Before the court could determine damages, the respondent raised a preliminary objection that the claimant's claims for general costs of UGX 15,000,000 from August 2013 to May 2014 and special damages of UGX 50,854,370 were not particularized as required under Order 6 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The claimant represented himself and attempted to adduce evidence particularizing the claims in his reply to the objection, but had not done so in his original pleadings.

Issues

  1. Whether the claimant's claims for special damages of UGX 15,000,000 and UGX 50,854,370 were properly particularized as required under Order 6 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection allowed.
  • Claims for UGX 15,000,000 from August 2013 to May 2014 under clause 8 struck out.
  • Claim for UGX 50,854,370 as special damages under clause 10(c) struck out.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Special Damages — Requirement to Particularize
A claim for special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. It is mandatory that special damages be particularized in the pleadings as required under Order 6 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Defective Pleadings — Cure by Evidence
Evidence adduced in reply to a preliminary objection cannot cure a defect in pleadings where special damages were not particularized in the original claim. What is not pleaded cannot be proved.
Damages & Quantum — Special Damages — Burden of Proof
It is not enough for a plaintiff to write down particulars of special damages and present them to the court. The plaintiff has the duty to prove their damage, though proof need not be by documentary evidence in all cases.

Legislation cited (1)

Cases cited (5)

  • Uganda Telecom Limited v Tanzanite Corporation (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2004)
  • Nalwadda v Uganda AIDS Commission (High Court Civil Suit No. 67 of 2011)
  • Sun Air Limited v Nanam Transport Co. Limited (High Court Civil Suit No. 229 of 2009)
  • Bank of Uganda v Tinkamanyire (Court of Appeal No. 12 of 2007)
  • MILLY JUUKO VS OPPORTUNITY UGANDA LIMITED

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ochwo_v_veterinaires_Sans_Frontieres_Belgium_(Labour_Dispute_209_of_2014)_[2017]_UGIC_12_(15_March_2017)
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.