Wakilii

Ram v Ram and Others (C.C No. 276 of 1933)

East African Court of Appeal · [1935] EACA 148 · 1935 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory ruling on pleadings in a civil action against a partnership
Decision
Matter to proceed to hearing with leave to amend granted

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

Where partners put in a defence not expressly stated to be on behalf of the firm, they should be allowed to amend their defence to express it as being on behalf of the firm, following Ellis v Wadeson. A defendant served as a partner who entered an unconditional appearance is not precluded from denying partnership in his defence where the issue was agreed to be determined later and the point was raised only after nineteen months.

Outcome

Matter to proceed to hearing with leave to amend granted

Facts

The plaintiff brought an action against three defendants trading as a partnership. The first and third defendants put in a defence but did not state it was on behalf of the firm. The second defendant entered an unconditional appearance but denied in his defence that he was a partner. The suit was filed in November 1933. In February 1935, the parties agreed to submit the matter to arbitration, with the question of the second defendant's liability to be determined after the award. In June 1935, nineteen months after filing, the plaintiff's new counsel raised objections to the pleadings, arguing that judgment should be entered against the firm in default of proper defence and that the second defendant could not deny partnership having appeared unconditionally.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to enter judgment in default of defence against the firm where two partners put in a defence not purporting to be on behalf of the firm.
  2. Whether a defendant served as a partner who entered an unconditional appearance (rather than appearing under protest under Order 27 r.8) could deny that he was a partner in his defence.

Orders

  • Leave granted to the first and third defendants to amend their defence to state that it is on behalf of the firm.
  • The second defendant is permitted to deny that he is a partner notwithstanding his unconditional appearance.
  • The plaintiff's submission that judgment should be entered without evidence on certain account items is rejected.
  • The case will proceed to hearing subject to the amendment.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Partnership Actions — Defence on Behalf of Firm — Amendment
Where partners served in an action against a firm put in a defence not expressly stated to be on behalf of the firm, the court should allow them to amend their defence to express it as being on behalf of the firm, particularly where the defect was not raised until long after the suit was filed and after the parties had agreed to arbitration.
Civil Procedure — Partnership Actions — Appearance Under Protest — Order 27 r.8
Order 27 r.8, which permits a person served as a partner to appear under protest denying partnership, does not take away the right of a person who has entered an unconditional appearance to dispute partnership in his defence, particularly where the circumstances show that the issue of partnership liability was agreed to be determined separately and the point was raised only after substantial delay.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Specific Denial — Proof Required
Where a defendant's pleading contains a specific denial of indebtedness claimed in account items, the plaintiff must prove the indebtedness and is not entitled to judgment without evidence, even if the amount is liquidated.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Order 27 r.7
  • Order 27 r.8

Cases cited (3)

  • Ellis v Wadeson [1899] 1 QB 714
  • Weir v McVicar [1925] 2 KB 127
  • Davis and Co v Andre and Co (1890) 24 QBD 598

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ram v Ram and Others (C.C No. 276 of 1933) [1935] EACA 148 (1 January 1935)
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.