Wakilii

Tinash Investments Ltd v Ajuk Ronald Jimmy & 2 Ors (HCT-00-CC-CS 257 of 2010)

High Court · [2012] UGCOMMC 25 · 2012 Preliminary Objection Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Preliminary objection to plaint on ground that it discloses no cause of action against the third defendant
Decision
Preliminary objection dismissed; main suit to proceed to trial on the merits

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 plaint alleging conspiracy to cause loss need not show that defendants were directors or shareholders of a non-existent unregistered entity. Where a plaintiff pleads that goods supplied were transported to the third defendant's premises and sold off, and that defendants conspired to cause loss, the plaint discloses a cause of action. The defendants having been sued in their individual capacities for conspiracy, the facts pleaded are sufficient to disclose a cause of action. The objection is overruled.

Outcome

Preliminary objection dismissed; main suit to proceed to trial on the merits

Facts

The plaintiff supplied 450 wheelbarrows and 450 rolls of barbed wire worth UGX 85,050,000 to Offenders Rehabilitation International on a local purchase order issued by the second defendant. When the plaintiff's director returned to collect payment, the offices on Mawanda Road were closed and the occupants had disappeared. Police investigations revealed Offenders Rehabilitation International was an unregistered entity. The second defendant was arrested and confessed the first defendant was her employer who had closed the organisation. Police discovered the merchandise had been transported to the third defendant's business premises in Lira and sold. The first and third defendants went into hiding and were later arrested and charged with obtaining goods by false pretences. The plaintiff sued all three defendants jointly and severally for conspiracy to cause loss and breach of contract. The third defendant filed a preliminary objection that the plaint disclosed no cause of action against him.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action against the third defendant under Order 7 rule 11(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection overruled.
  • Plaintiff may proceed to call its witnesses and have the suit determined on its merits.
  • Costs of the preliminary objection awarded to the plaintiff.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Cause of Action — Order 7 rule 11(a)
A plaint discloses a cause of action if it avers and demonstrates that the plaintiff enjoyed a right, that right was violated, and the defendant is liable.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Determination — Materials Considered
In determining whether a plaint discloses a cause of action, the court may only peruse the plaint and any annexure thereto. Submissions from the bar introducing facts not pleaded cannot be considered.
Tort Law — Conspiracy — Pleading Requirements — Unregistered Entity
Where a plaintiff alleges conspiracy to cause loss and pleads that an unregistered entity (which is a nonentity and cannot have directors or shareholders) was used to obtain goods, defendants sued in their individual capacities need not be shown to have been directors, shareholders or promoters of the nonexistent entity for a cause of action to be disclosed.
Tort Law — Conspiracy — Joint and Several Liability — Pleading
Where conspiracy is alleged, facts pleaded which show that one defendant was directly involved in obtaining goods implicate all alleged conspirators who are said to be behind the acts of that defendant as far as the conspiracy to cause loss is concerned.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (5)

  • Auto Garage and others v Motokov (1971) EA
  • Attorney General v Major David Sejusa (SCCA No. 1 of 1997)
  • Al Hajj Nasser N Ssebagala v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Petition No. 1 of 1999)
  • Attorney General v Oluoch (1972) EA 392
  • Jeroj Shariff & Co v Chotai Family Stores (1960) EA 374

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tinash Investments Ltd v Ajuk Ronald Jimmy & 2 Ors (HCT-00-CC-CS 257 of 2010) [2012] UGCommC 25 (12 April 2012)
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.