Wakilii

Sule Pharmacy Limited v The Registered Trustees of The Khoja Shia Itana Shari Jamat (Miscellaneous Application 147 of 1999)

High Court · [1999] UGHC 34 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory application for better and further particulars arising from High Court Civil Suit
Decision
Application for better and further particulars granted; respondent ordered to comply within fourteen days

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 High Court held that applications by Notice of Motion are governed by the specific procedure under Order 48 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which takes precedence over the general pleading requirements in Order 6 rule 1(b) as amended in 1998. Under the generalia specialibus rule of statutory interpretation, where there is a specific legislative provision and a general provision on the same matter, the specific provision prevails. The court rejected the respondent's preliminary objection that the Notice of Motion was incompetent for non-compliance with Order 6 rule 1(b), and ordered the respondent to furnish better and further particulars within fourteen days.

Outcome

Application for better and further particulars granted; respondent ordered to comply within fourteen days

Facts

The applicant, Sule Pharmacy Limited, brought an interlocutory application arising from High Court Civil Suit No. 30 of 1999, seeking an order that the respondent furnish better and further particulars of paragraph 1 of their Written Statement of Defence. The respondent had raised a preliminary objection in their defence stating that the suit was misconceived, bad in law, and unenforceable, but provided no elaboration. The respondent's counsel objected that the application was incompetent because the Notice of Motion, being a pleading filed after the 1998 Civil Procedure Rules Amendment, did not comply with Order 6 rule 1(b) requiring attachment of summary of evidence, list of witnesses, documents and authorities. The applicant's counsel argued that applications by Notice of Motion supported by affidavit need not comply with that requirement as the evidence is contained in the affidavit, and the nature of the application does not require witnesses or documents.

Issues

  1. Whether a Notice of Motion filed after the 1998 Civil Procedure Rules Amendment must comply with Order 6 rule 1(b) requiring attachment of summary of evidence, list of witnesses, list of documents and list of authorities.
  2. Whether the specific procedure for applications by Notice of Motion under Order 48 rule 3 takes precedence over the general pleading requirements under Order 6 rule 1(b).
  3. Whether the applicant should be furnished with better and further particulars of paragraph 1 of the respondent's Written Statement of Defence.

Orders

  • The preliminary objection is hereby dismissed.
  • The application is hereby allowed.
  • The respondents/defendants to furnish further and better particulars of paragraph one of their Written Statement of Defence to the plaintiff within 14 days from the date of this ruling.
  • Each party to bear its costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Notice of Motion — Compliance with Order 6 rule 1(b) as amended in 1998
A Notice of Motion is a pleading within the definition of section 2 of the Civil Procedure Act, but applications by Notice of Motion are governed by the specific procedure under Order 48 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which takes precedence over the general pleading requirements in Order 6 rule 1(b) as amended in 1998.
Statutory Interpretation — Generalia Specialibus Rule — Conflict between general and specific provisions
Under the generalia specialibus rule of statutory interpretation, where there is a specific legislative provision and a general provision on a particular matter or procedure, the specific provision takes precedence over the general provision. If there is a general power and a specific power, the general power cannot be exercised to do that which is the subject of the special power.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Order 6 rule 1(b) — Inapplicability where annextures inexistent
The requirement under Order 6 rule 1(b) to attach summary of evidence, list of witnesses, list of documents and list of authorities becomes moot and inapplicable where the information is inexistent or inapplicable by the very nature of the application. Courts cannot insist on the impossible or demand that a party attach information that does not exist.
Civil Procedure — Better and Further Particulars — Purpose of pleadings
The function of pleadings is to give fair notice of the case which has to be met so that the opposing party may direct evidence to the issues disclosed. The underlying philosophy of amended Order 6 is to avoid surprise in court and to bring parties to a clear issue, delimiting the issues so both parties know beforehand the real issues for determination at trial.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Civil Procedure Act s.2
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.6 r.1(b)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.48 r.1
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.48 r.3
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.33
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.9 r.9
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.9 r.24

Cases cited (6)

  • Bakunda Darlington v Dr Kinyatta (Election Petition No. 1 of 1996)
  • PWICO v Mawokota Chemical Industries Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 51 of 1999)
  • Refrigerated Express Lines (A/Asia) Pty Ltd v. Australian Meat and Livestock Corpn. (1980) 29 ALR 333
  • No. 20, Cannon St. Ltd v. Singer & Friedlander Ltd (1974) Ch.229
  • Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. South Port Corpn. (1956) AC 218
  • Kenfreight (U) Ltd v Sebunya (Miscellaneous Application No. 353 of 1998)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sule Pharmacy Limited v The Registered Trustees of The Khoja Shia Itana Shari Jamat (Miscellaneous Application 147 of 1999) [1999] UGHC 34 (1 June 199
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.