Wakilii

Quick Cargo Handling Services Ltd v Iron Steel Wares Ltd & Ors (CIVIL SUIT NO. 328 OF 2002. ) (CIVIL SUIT NO. 328 of 2002.)

High Court · [2003] UGHC 43 · 2003 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Preliminary objection on points of law raised by defendants under Order 6 rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules before trial of the main suit
Decision
Third defendant struck out; suit to proceed against first and second defendants

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 the plaint disclosed a cause of action against the first and second defendants but not against the third defendant, which was named inconsistently with the documentary evidence and appeared to be a non-existing entity. A suit against a non-existing person is a nullity and must be struck out. The action in detinue was not time-barred because the cause of action arose when the defendants detained the chattels after demand for restoration in October 1999, not when the original eviction occurred in June 1994.

Outcome

Third defendant struck out; suit to proceed against first and second defendants

Facts

The plaintiff, Quick Cargo Handling Services Ltd, was a tenant at plots 29A and 29B Nasser Road, Kampala. In June 1994, the defendants evicted the plaintiff and carried out distress for rent, allegedly unlawfully, and took the plaintiff's movable properties. The plaintiff made written demands for the restoration of its properties on 1 October 1999 and 31 January 2000, but the defendants continued to detain them. The plaintiff filed suit claiming detinue and other relief. The defendants raised preliminary objections that the plaint disclosed no cause of action, that the suit was frivolous and vexatious, and that it was time-barred under the Limitation Act.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action against the first, second and third defendants.
  2. Whether the suit is frivolous and vexatious against the second defendant.
  3. Whether the suit is time-barred by the Limitation Act.

Orders

  • The name of the third defendant struck off from the plaint.
  • The objections raised by the first and second defendants dismissed.
  • Costs to be in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objection — Disclosure of Cause of Action — Tests under Order 7 rule 11(a)
Under Order 7 rule 11(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules, a court must reject a plaint that discloses no cause of action. To disclose a cause of action, the plaint must show: (a) that the plaintiff enjoyed a right; (b) that the right has been violated; and (c) that the defendant is liable. The question must be determined solely by perusing the plaint and any documents forming part of it, presuming all allegations of fact to be true.
Civil Procedure — Non-Existing Party — Effect on Plaint
Where a suit is filed against a non-existing person or entity, the plaint is a nullity and must be struck out. A corporate body is incorporated in its registered name, which gives it its external corporate identity. If the name on the plaint does not correspond to any existing registered entity, and there is nothing to prove its incorporation or existence, the suit against that entity cannot stand.
Tort Law — Detinue — When Cause of Action Arises
The tort of detinue arises from wrongful detention of chattels or goods, even where the original taking was lawful. The cause of action in detinue arises not at the time of the original taking, but when the defendant detains the chattels after the plaintiff has demanded their restoration. To succeed in detinue, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant detained the chattel after a demand for restoration had been made.
Statutory Interpretation — Limitation Act — Six-Year Period for Detinue
Where a claim is based on the tort of detinue, the six-year limitation period under section 4 of the Limitation Act runs from the date the cause of action arose — that is, the date on which the defendant detained the chattels after a demand for restoration, not the date of the original taking or eviction.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (6)

  • Auto Garage v Motokov [1971] EA 514
  • Jeraj Shariff v Chotai Fancy Store [1960] EA 374
  • Patrick v Mrekwe [1964] EA 24
  • Iga v Makerere University [1972] EA 65
  • Sajan Singh v Sardar Ali [1960] 1 All ER 269
  • Charles Douglas Cullen v Parson and Hensraj [1962] EA 159

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Quick Cargo Handling Services Ltd v Iron Steel Wares Ltd & Ors (CIVIL SUIT NO. 328 OF 2002. ) (CIVIL SUIT NO. 328 of 2002.) [2003] UGHC 43 (5 June 2003)
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.