Wakilii

Seram v Carr Lawson and Co Limited (Civil Case No. 71 of 1939)

East African Court of Appeal · [1938] EACA 185 · 1938 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for order requiring defendant to furnish further and better particulars of defence under Order VI Rule 6
Decision
Defendants ordered to furnish further and better particulars of their defence

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

A general denial in a defence to allegations that the defendant wrongfully seized property is ambiguous because it does not clarify whether the defendant denies the act itself or only its wrongful character. Where a defence contains such ambiguity, the plaintiff is entitled to an order for particulars to know the case to be met at trial.

Outcome

Defendants ordered to furnish further and better particulars of their defence

Facts

The plaintiff sued the defendant for damages for trespass and conversion, alleging that on 11 April 1939 the defendant by its agents wrongfully seized motor car No. T4974 and petrol in its tank, depriving the plaintiff who had a valid interest as hirer of the car and owner of the petrol. The defendant filed a written statement of defence containing a general denial of all allegations and putting the plaintiff to strict proof. The plaintiff applied under Order VI Rule 6 for an order requiring the defendant to furnish particulars of its defence, specifically whether it denied the plaintiff's possession, whether it denied taking the car, and if it admitted taking but claimed leave and licence, particulars of such leave and licence.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to an order requiring the defendant to furnish further and better particulars of its defence under Order VI Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

  • Application granted.
  • Order made requiring the defendants to supply the particulars sought by the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Defence — Particulars — General Denial — Ambiguity
Where a statement of claim alleges that a defendant wrongfully did a certain act, a literal traverse denying the wrongful act is ambiguous because it does not clarify whether the defendant denies the bare act or only its wrongful character under the circumstances. Such a traverse will be construed as denying only the bare act.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Particulars — Purpose and Function
Each party must state its case with precision in pleadings to ensure clearness and prevent surprise at trial. Particulars should sufficiently indicate to the opponent the nature of the evidence required and enable the opponent to properly prepare for trial.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Defence — Requirement to Deal Specifically with Allegations
It is not sufficient for a defendant to deny generally the grounds alleged in the statement of claim. The defendant must deal specifically with each allegation of fact which it does not admit, and where multiple defences are raised they should be stated separately and clearly.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Particulars — Entitlement to Order
Where a defence is ambiguous and does not give the plaintiff a precise idea of the case to be met, the plaintiff is entitled to an order for particulars to know approximately the case for the defence, notwithstanding that the onus remains on the plaintiff to prove its own case.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (20)

  • Thorp v Holdsworth (3 Ch D 639)
  • Spedding v Fitzpatrick (38 Ch D 413)
  • Phillips v P (4 QBD 139)
  • Ratcliffe v Evans [1892] 2 QB 532
  • Weinberger v Inglis [1918] 1 Ch 138
  • Elkingion v. London Association, etc., 27 Times Reports, 329
  • Green v. Garbuit (1912) 28 Times Reports, 575
  • McLulich v McLulich [1920] P 439
  • Lister v. Thompson, 7 Times Reports, 107
  • Temperton v. Russell, 9 Times Rep., p. 321
  • Briton Medical Association v. Britannia Fire Association, 59 L.T. 888
  • Marriott v Chamberlain (17 QBD 154)
  • Zierenberg v Labouchere [1893] 2 QB 187
  • Bishop v B [1901] P 325
  • Wooton v Sievier [1913] 3 KB 499
  • Spiers and Pond, Ltd. v. John Bull. Ltd. (1916) 114 L.T., 641; 32 Times Rep. 317, C.A.
  • Cave v. Torre, 54 L.T., 515
  • Gibbons v. Norman, 2 Times Rep., 676
  • James v. Radnor County Council, 6 Times Rep., 240
  • Roberts v. Owen, ibid. 172

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Seram v Carr Lawson and Co Limited (Civil Case No. 71 of 1939) [1938] EACA 185 (1 January 1938)
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.