Pearl Diary Farms Limited v Scanad Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application 273 of 2023)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The High Court Commercial Division struck out the respondent's affidavit in reply as incurably defective on grounds that the deponent's signature appeared to be electronic and the annexures bore a different person's name. The court held that a preliminary objection on illegality can be raised at any time and supersedes pleadings. The applicant was granted unconditional leave to appear and defend the underlying suit, with costs to abide the outcome of the main cause.

Outcome

Applicant granted leave to appear and defend; matter to proceed to full hearing

Facts

Pearl Diary Farms Limited contracted Scanad Uganda Limited to provide creative advertising concepts for two products at a total consideration of UGX 69,856,000. Scanad issued tax invoices dated 4 September 2020 and 22 September 2020 for work allegedly performed. Pearl Diary Farms did not pay, contending that the invoices were only brought to its attention in January 2022 and that Scanad had not delivered within agreed timelines or in accordance with Local Purchase Order terms requiring delivery within 30 days. Scanad filed suit for the unpaid invoices. Pearl Diary Farms applied for leave to appear and defend, raising a preliminary objection that Scanad's affidavit in reply was defective because the deponent's signature appeared electronic and the annexures bore a different person's name.

Issues

1. Whether the Respondent's affidavit in reply is incurably defective.
2. Whether the Applicant should be granted leave to appear and defend CS 0098 of 2023.
3. What other remedies are available to the Parties?

Orders

• The affidavit in reply is struck out as incurably defective.
• The Applicant is granted leave to appear and defend Civil Suit No. 0098 of 2023.
• The Applicant must file her written statement of defence within fifteen (15) days from the date of delivery of this ruling.
• The costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the main cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (13)

• Civil Procedure Rules Order 36 rule 4
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 36 rule 5
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 rule 1
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 rule 3
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 rule 28
• Judicature Act s.17(2)
• Judicature Act s.33
• Civil Procedure Act s.27(1)
• Civil Procedure Act s.98
• Evidence Act s.101
• Oaths Act s.5
• Oaths Act s.6
• Commissioner for Oaths Rules rule 7

Cases cited (3)

• Mohammed Magyambere v Khadil (HCMA No. 727 of 2012)
• Ochwa David v Ogwari Polycarp & Electoral Commission (HC EP No. 410 of 2021)
• Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga & Another [1982] HCB 11

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Thummar Agro and Farm Limited and Victoria Sugar Limited v Kafirigi Richard and Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 162 of 2024)

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